The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-05-07


nor any other people ola civilized nation, afterwards
attempted to settle there, at any other spot west
of the Rocky mountains, between the 37th and the
Seth parallels Of latitude, until 1906
Upon this Nootka convention Of 1890, the Brit
ish commissioners, in the negotiation with the Uni
ted States in 1927, rested all their claims with
spect to the countries west Of the Rocky noun
tans; refusing TO admit any the part of the Uni
ted States mot derived from the convention through
Spain. 'Great Britain" say they in their state
ment, 'clams no exclusive sovereignty over any
part Of that territory. Her present claim, not in
respect Of any part, but of the whole is limited to
a right of joint occupancy, in common with other
States, leaving the right of exclusive dominion in
allegiance" SIT only remains for Great Britain
to maintain and uphold the qualified rights which
she now possesses the whole the territories in
question. These rights are recorded and defined in
the convention of Nootka. They embrace the rights
to settle in and over any part of them; and the right
freely to trade with the inhabitants and occupiers
ofthe same" "The rights Of Spain on that coast
were, by the treaty Of Florida in 1919, conveyed by
Spain to the United States With those rights the
United States necessarily succeeded to the limita-
tons by which they were defined, and the obliga-
tons under which they were to be exercised From
those obligations and limitations, as contracted
towards Great Britain, Great Britain cannot be ex-
pectea gratutously to release those countries,
ly because the rights Of the party originally bound
have been transferred to third power'
This is distinct, and would be very reasonable
and effective, but for the circumstance that the
Nootka convention expired in 1796, when Spain de-
clared war against Great Britain, and has remained
defunct until this present day. agreeably not only to
all the recognised principles Of national law but to
the declaration and the invariabe practice Of Great
Britain herself in such cases. II will be unneces
ry to present the arguments of writers national
law in proof of this assertion; that it is agreeable
to the usage of nations, is sufficiently confirmed by
the fact that, in all treaties of peace great is ta
ken to specify such treaties existing before the
as are again to be observed, all others being sup
posed to be extinct As to the views Of the British
government on the question, they are defnitively
and positively set forth in case now to be related
In 1915, Mr.. Adams claimed for the United States
the right of drying fish the unoccupied coasts of
Newfoundland, which they had enjoyed before the
war Of 1872 in virtue of the treaty of 1885, insist
ing that this treaty, whereby Great Britain ac-
knowledged the independence of the United States,
was of peculiar nature and not subject, like many
others, to abrogation by war. Lord Bathurst, the
British minister however, replied, that, "o posi-
on of this norel nature, Great Britain cannot accede
She knoaos no exception 10 the rule that all treaties
put an end 10 by subsequent rar beticeen the same
parties and she cannot therefore, consent to give to
her diplomatic relations with one State, different
degree of permanency from that on which her con-
nection with other States depends" The British
minister maintained his position that treaty, exist
ing before war; cannot be supposed to be renewed by
the mere fact of restoration Of peace; and it was
finally established after an able discussion between
the two ministers, at the end of which new and
special convention signed the subject. 1t is
needless to adduce any farther arguments to show
that the Nootka convention expired 1885, the as
sertion of Lord John Russell to the contrary not
withstandng; and we are well persuaded that the
British government will not, if this issue should
ever be presented to in negotiation venture to
dispute this old-established principle Of political law
at the risk of unsettling many Of the relations with
other States. On this point, Lord John Russell
says
at has been stated by some, as an argument in
favor Of the claims of the United States that wal
had taken place since the convent on and that the
war had the effect of taking away the title of Grea
Britain. That, however, is answered by the fact
that in 1874 at the peace, there was additional
article which gave effect to the convention between
this country and SPAIN and any treaty with the
United States in 1879 would only succeed in giving
to the United States such title as Spain held in
J 1S14.o
To this conclusion per Sc, we find no objection; but
we regard its meaning and its effects as very differ
ent from those which Lord John Russell seems to
indicate by his previous statements.
| The war between Spain and Great Britain contin
ued, with the short intermsson following the peace
Of Amens, until 1909, when the two nations were
again in alliance against France. No renewal o.
any former engagements, however, was effected un
til 1874 when, in the additional articles to the trea
ty of Madrid, it agreed that, pending the nego
tiation of new treaty of commerce, Great Britain
shall be permitted to trade with Spain upon the same
conditions as those which existed previously t.
1886; all the treaties Of phich at that perio1
subssted bet,ceen the tco nations, being hereby raf6t
and confirmed" The first part Of this article coult
have related only to the trade between the European
dominons of the two powers, as no trade had evel
been allowed between either party and the colonie.
Of the other, except the slave trade, which Grea
Britain monopolized by the .asento treaty, from III;
to 1740 and because, ALSO it was agreed in another
those articles that fthe trade Of the Spanish Amer
can colonies should be opened toforeign nations,
would be allowed to Great Britain the terms Of thu
most favored nation. Lord John Russell, however
contends that this article would have renewed thu
Nootka convention, if il had been abrogated by war
In answer to this, we have only to ask, was thu
Nootka convention, in any sense, treaty of com
merce between Great Britain and SPAIN Was III,
provision for the restoration of places supposed t.
have been taken by Great Britain from Spain, I
commercial stipulation Were the recognition of thu
right to make settlements in one part of America
and the prohibition of settlements in another, com
mercjal stipuations, Might not any other treaty