Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-07-26
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
THE OREGON NEGOTIATION IN 1884; ITS HIS
TORY, ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS AND
NEGOTIATOR.


TORY, ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS AND
NEGOTIATOR
We have of late been at some pains to make our
readers acquainted with the more miscellaneous
matter of Mr. RusH's new Memoranda of his Resi-
dence at the Court Of London. Upon the Negofia-
hOns which he conducted there on the part Of Mr..
MoNRoE's Cabinet we have scarcely touched. On
all but one of them, ii was needless TO touch for
they have passed into mere themes for diplomatic
history. One only is left, as question still present,
and which has been made, of late, by artificial agi-
tation, subject Of urgent importance.
Thus far, we have forbome to enter into regu-
lar examination of the grounds of our claim in the
Oregon region. Until we had seen the adverse ar
gument, we not in haste to pronounce that our
own was entirely conclusive The country has.
thus far, since the stir about our rights on the
Pacific, heard nothing but an er parte statement of
the case. While such is the fact, people usually
need no labor of argument to add to the rmness of
their conviction that all the right is on their side |;
that their title, though always questioned, is I'M
questionable J" though for ffty-fve years in con-
slant dispute, is " indisputable.'
On our side, the claim and the argument have
IL
degree as violently to conflict in some of its FORMS
with its assertion in others; while, as to the latter,
our statesmen and bookmakers seem to think that
the proofs in our favor have obtained an overwhelm
ing accreton since the thing last upon diploma
TIC trial. Certainly, this is entirely possible: but
then, who shall assure that just the same accu-
mutation of evidence has not been going on upon
the other side also? The testimony in mans favor
must usually be very bad, indeed if it does not look
very clear aaH met. For our part, we have none
OF that resistess perspicacy which can pierce to
decision without the dull delay of investigating both
sides OF question and, we had not yet been
put into possession of the adverse peadngs in their
latest shape, not prepared TO consider our
own entirely unanswerable. So that our proper
part has seemed TO us that which we have taken to
calm down mems minds from any hasty excite
ment-o avert any rash and violent counsels, which,
If our really so capable of being made
good by peaceful arbitrament would be likely only !
TO fling II into the jeopardy of needless and danger
Gus war; in word 10 induce, as far as we could
public feeling TO this matter more deliberate
more prudent more equitable and honorable than
these sudden starts of infammatory opinion that
would break through all peace and teach other
nations that to negotiate with these United States
is idle.
Since the attempted proceedings in Congress, to
the intemperance of which we more particularly
refer as worthy TO be deprecated the grounds which
new discussion of these territorial claims must
probably take have received, in several ways, dis
closure important enough 10 merit that we should
endeavor, for the sake of public information to ex-
hbit them historically.
The English view of the matter has been partial
ly set forth in the books of Falconer q Dunn the
American, in second and greatly enlarged edition
OF MIR. Robert Greenhow's History of the Oregon
Question and the latter third of Mr.. Rush's new
volume consists mainly of an account by that skill
full representative Of rights and claims of these
as maintained by him, and as met by the adverse
British ones, during the long discussion of 1924.
Of these several volumes, Messrs Falconer Dunn's
are both partial and uncirculated Mr.. Greenhow's
partial but widely eirculated Mr.. Rush's as fair
as could be expected from any one who has acted
as the advocate of party, but been made to feel
the force Of the opposite party's pretensions. His
relations to the contest, and his perfect mastery of
both sides of it, make him much the best witness in
iroduced on either part. Indeed, properly, he is
ule only witness the others are but counsel. To
ihe entire extent IN which he testies, down to the
close OF the discussion Of ls23-4) his statements
are OF the highest authority In other instances,
we but listen to those who do not testify hut arue
who have no personal knowledge Of the case. but
recite, at second hand the testimony of others That
very testimony from which they thus draw at Sc
cond hand is, for the greater part, but series Of
pleadings, prepared by negotiator against negotia-
tor-papers in which the real and candid opinion Of
either negotator is rarely expressed, unless il
chances to be such will not prejudice his cause
Or such, Mr.. Rush is the only one who has given
us more than this diplomatic and obfcio pleading
who Offers besides deliberate and apparently most
sincere personal Narrative Of the entire negotiation,
IN which he obviously endeavors 10 speak as impair
TALLY as he does advisedly, and doubt puts aside
his own national and party preudices as far any
one can be expected TO do. So far as he leans at
ALL it is to side that he leans he is our witness
he is our best-informed and fairest witness and
there is none therefore, whom it is so fit that we
should listen with attention and respect if we wish
TO make up safe opinion of our rights. We pro-
pose, them to state historically the negotiation as
related by him; TO give, in abstract, the American
and the British arguments or offers, as he details
them, with the judgment which he expresses, whe-
Their general or on some particular point and, in
-