The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-12-09


sav that John Meafes q British subject sailing un.
der tho Portuguese flag, landed at Nootka Sound in
IN 1888, and made temporary establishment there
for the purpose Of building vessel; and that the
Spaniards in 1852 took possession OF this establish
ment under the orders of the viceroy of Mexico,
who claimed for Spain the exclusive sovereignty
of the whole territory on the northwest coast OF
America up TO the Russian line. Meares appealed
10 the British government Cor redress against Spain,
and the danger of war between the two nations be-
came imminent This was prevented by the con-
cluslon of the Nootka Sound convention. That
convention provides by its FIRST and second articles,
Tor the restoration Of tie lands and buildings Of
which the subjects Of Great Britain had been dis
possessed by the Spaniards, and the payment of an
indemnify for the injuries sustained This ndenl-
nifty was paid by Spain; but no sufficient evidence
has been adduced, that either Nootka Sound, or
any other spot upon the coast, Was ever actually
surrendered by that power to Great Britain. All
we know with certainty, is, that Spain continued in
possession Of Nootka Sound until TBS, when she
voluntarily abandoned the place. Since that peri
cd, no attempt has been made (unless very recent
ly) by Great Britain, or her subjects, to occupy
either this, or any other part of Vancouver's is
land. IL is thus manifest, that she did not former
ly attach much importance to the exercise of the
rights, whatever they may have been, which she
had acquired under the Nootka Sound conyen.
tion
The only other portion Of this convention impor-
tant for the present discussion will be fouad in the
third and the fifth articles. They follows: "Art
). In order TO strengthen the bonds of friendship,
and to preserve in future perfect harmony and
good understanding between the two contracting
parties, it is agreed that their respective sub
jects shall not be disturbed or moested, eth
er in navigating or carrying on their fisheries
In the Pacific ocean, in the south seas, or in land
ing on the coasts of those in places not already
occupied for the purpose of carrying ON their COM
merce with the natives of the country or of making
pet vuh snbiact theta
to the restrictions specified in the three following
tcles.n The material one Of which is: "Art. S.
As well in the places which are to be restored to
the British subjects, by virtue of the first article
IN all other parts of the northwestern coasts Of
North America, or of the islands adjacent, situate
the north Of the parts of the said coast already
occupied by Spain wherever the subjects of either
of the two powers shall have made settlements since
the month Of April, 1889, or shall hereafter make
any, the subjects Of the other shall have free access
and shall carry their trade without any disturb
ance or molestaton."
It may be observed, as striking fact which must
have an important bearing against the claim of Great
Britain, that this convention, which dictated by
her to SPAIN contains no provision mpairing the u-
innate sovereignty which that power had asserted
for nearly three centuries over the whole western
side of North America as far north as the 6lst de-
gree of latitude, and which had never been serious
ly questioned by any European nation. This right
had been maintained by Spain with the most vigil
liant jealousy, ever since the discovery of the Amer
ican continent, and had been acquiesced in by all
European governments. It had been admitted even
beyond the latitude of $40 4 north, by Russia then
the only power having claims which could come in
collision with Spain; and that, too, under sover
egn peculiarly tenacious of the territorial rights Of
her empire. This will appear from the letter Of
Count de Fernan Nunez, the Spanish ambassador al
Paris, to Nj. de Montmorin, the Secretary of the
Foreign Department Of France, dated Paris, June
18th, 1870, From this letter, it seems that COM
plants had been made by Spain the court of Rus
STA against Russian subjects for violating the Span
ish territory on the northwest coast of America
south Of the 6lst degree of north latitude; in
quence of which, that court without delay, assured
the King Of Spain that it was extremely sorry that
the repeated orders issued to prevent the subjects Of
Russia from violating, in the smallest degree, the
territory belonging to another power, should have
been disoheyed"
This convention Of 1870 recognizes no right in
Great Britain, either present prospective, 10 plant
permanent colonies on the northwest coast Of Amer
ca to exercise such exclusive jurisdiction over
any portion of It as is essential to sovereignty.
Great Britain obtained from Spain all she then de-
sired--a mere, engagement that her subjects should
mot be disturbed or molested" Sin landing on the
coasts of those in places not already occupied
for the purpose Of carrying on their commerce with
the natives of the country, or of making settlements
there" What kind of"seulementsi" This is not
specified but surely their character and duration
limited by the object which the contracting parties
had in view. They must have been such only as
were necessary and proper for tho purpose Of car
rying on commerce with the natives the country
Were these settlements intended to expand into col
onies TO expe the natives, to deprive Spain of her
sovereign rights and to confer the exclusive urs-
diction the whole territory on Great Britain
Surely, Spain designed any such results; and
il Great Britain has obtained these concessions
by the Nootka Sound convention, it has been by
the most extraordinary construction ever imposed
upon human language. But this convention also
stipulates that to these settlements which might
be made by the one party, "the subjects of the
other shall have free access, and shall carry on
their trade without any disturbance or molesta-
ton" What trade. Certainly that "with the
natives Of the country" as prescribed in the
third article; and this, from the very nature Of
things, could continue only whilst the country
should remain in the possession of the Indians. On
no other construction can this convention escape
from the absurdities attributed to it by British states
men, when under discussion before the House of
Commons "In every place in which we might set
tie, (said Mr.--afterwards Earl--Grey,) access was
left for the Spanards. Where we might form a
settlement on one hill, they might erect fort on
another and merchant must run all the risks of q
discovery and all the expenses Of an establishment
for property which liable to be the subject OF
continual dispute, and could never be placed upon a
permanent footing"
Most certainly this treaty was in its very nature,
temporary; and the rights Of Great Britain under
1t never intended to s'be placed upon perma-
nent footing" II twas to endure no longer than the
existence of those peculiar causes which called it
INTO being. Such treaty, creating British and
Spanish settlements interminged with each other,
and dotted the whole surface Of the territory,
wherever British CIR Spanish merchant could find
q spot favorable for trade with the Indians, never
could have been intended for permanent arrange
rnent between civilized nations.
But whatever may be the true construction Of the
Nootka Sound convention, it has, in the opinion of
the undersigned, long since ceased to exist.
The general rule Of national law is, that war ter
inmates all subsistng treaties between the belliger
ent powers Great Britain has maintained this rule
TO its utmost extent Lord Bathurst, in negotiating
with Mr.. Adams in 1915 says, "that Great Britain
knows of exception to the rule that all treaties
are put end to by subsequent war be-
tween the same parties" Perhaps the only
exception tn this rule--if such it may be
styled--is that of treaty recognizing certain
sovereign rights as belonging to nation, which had
previously existed independently Of any treaty en-