Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1845-12-25
Nye 5cntt11el ;
~ UNAs&axCEl:
DECEMBER IS, lS45.
THE OREGON QUESTION.
THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH QUA CLAIM RESTS.

The OREGON QUESTION.
THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH QUA CLAIM RESTS.
The controversy now pending between the
United States and Great Britain, relative to
the justice of the claims of the coDtending par
ties to the Oregon Territory, is Of sufficient
importance to elicit thu serioas attention of the
legislative powers, and indeed Of the people
generally of both nations. Each Of the con-
tending parties has set up claims to that terri
tory, and each pretends to think its own supe-
rior to the rights of the other. In this state Of
the question, it not only becomes the law-ma-
king powers ofthe two countries, upon whose
action its adjustment depends, but the people,
who are to be affected, just as it may be set
tied peaceably or by resort to wa, dispassion-
ately, and with desire to wrong no one, to
examine the question in all its aspects and bear
ngs, and decide justly upon their respective
claims. With view to enable our Numerous
readers, who have not perhaps had an oppor-
tunity of perusing the voluminous correspon
dence between the American Secretary Of
State and the British Minister, TO form some
idea of the justice of cur claims, we will
endeavor to make the question sufficiently
plain to'be understood, by quoting such por-
lions of the arguments adduced by Mr. CAL
Houk, as will present the grounds upon which
the United States predicate their claims to Or
egon-leaving the British side of the question
to be maintained by those who may feel dis
posed to do so. 1t is our motto to deem onr
country tob be right in this, as well as in all 9TH
er questions that involve her rights.
A proposition was made to our government,
by Mr.. PAcKENHAM, in behalf of his govern
ment, which Mr.. CALHOUN very promptly
declined accepting, con the ground that it
would have the effect Of restricting tie posses
sons Of the United States to limits far more
clcun scribed than their claims clearly emit
tie them to-" teccuse sit proposes to limit their
northern boundary by a line drawn from the
Rocky Mountains along the 10th parallel of
latitude to the northeasternmost branch of the
Columbia rver-giviug TO Great Britain all
the country north. and to the United States
all south of that line, except detached terri
tory. extending on the Pacific, and the Straits
of Fuca from Bullfnch's Harbor to Hood 5
Canal" Mr.. CALHOUN then proceeds TO
prove the right of the United States to that
Territory, in the following words:
sour claims to the portion of the territory
drained by the Columbia river may be divided
into those we have in our own proper right,
and those we have derived from France and
Spain. We ground the former las against Great
Britain, on priority of discovery and priority Of
exploration and settlement. We rest our
claim to discovery, as against her, on that of
Captain Gray, citizen ofth United States,
who. in the ship Columbia, of Boston, passed
lis bar and anchored in the river, ten miles
above its mouth on the lth day of May, 1899;
and who afterwards sailed up the river twelve
or fifteen miles, and left it on the Goth of the
same month, calling it Columbia," after his
ship, which name it still retains.
..On these facts our claim to the discovery
and entrance into the river rests. They are
too well attested to be controvered. But they
have been opposed by the alleged discoveries
of Meares and Vancouver. 1t is true that the
which the Columbia flows into the ocean, in
1888, give years before Captain Gray crossed
The bar and anchored in the river, in order to
the Spanish charts, and called the St. Roc. ex-
listed or not; but it is equally true that he did
not even discover it. On the contrary, lie ex-
pressly declares, in his account of the voyage,
as the result Of his observations, that SAGE can
1. 81 II
that ct the st. Roc, as laid do,cn IN the Span
isl charts;'' and, as if to perpetuate his dlsap-
pointment, he called the prolnontory lying
north Of the inlet where he expected to discov-
er it, Cape Disappointment, and the inlet it
self, Deception Bay. 1t is also true that Van
couver, in April, 1892, explored the same
coast; but it is no less SO that he failed to dis
cover the ri~er-of which his own journal fur
nshes the most conclusive evidence, as well
as his strong conviction that no such river exis-
ted. So strong was it, indeed, that, when he
fell in with Captain Gray, shortly afterwards,
and was informed by him that he had been off
the mouth Of a river, in latitude z6 degrees 10
minutes, whose outlet was so strong as to pre-
vent his entering, he remained still incredu-
Ions, and strongly expressed himself to that eff
feet in his journal. 1t was shortly after this
interview that captain Gfay again visited lis
mouth, crossed its bar, and sailed up the river,
as has been stated. After he leftit, he visited
Nootka Sound, where he communicated his
discoveries to Quadra, the Spanish commandant
at that place. and gave him chart and de-
scription of the mouth Of the river. After his
departure, Vancouver arrived there, in Septem-
Der, when he was informed of the discoveries
Of Captain Gray, and obtained from Quadra
copies Of the chart he had left with him. In
consequence Of the information thus obtained,
he was induced to visit again that part of the
coast It was during this visit that he enter
ed the river, on the 10Th October, and made
This survey.
From these facts. it is manifest that the
alleged discoveries Of Meares and Vancouver
cannot. in hs slightest degree, shake the