Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1845-12-30
Mr.. CALHOUN To Mr.. PAKENHAM.

| he Undersigned, American pleuI poicn-
tiary, declines the proposal of the plenipo-
Tertiary. on the ground that it would have
the effect OF restricting the possessions of
the United States to limits far more circum-
scribed than their claims clearly entjlle them
10. II proposes TO Knit Their northern bodn-
! dary by line drawn from the Rocky noun
tains along The 49h parallel oifIiafiiu lu- 70
the northeastern branch Of the Columbia
river, and thence down the middle Of that
river to the sea-giving TO Great Britain all
the country north, and 10 the United States
all south, of that line except IA detached
territory extending on the Pacific and the
| Straits of Fuca, from Bulfnch's hlrbor TO
Hoods canal. TO which i: is proposed, 10
addition, to make free to the United Safes
any poy, which the United States govern
ment might desire. either on the mainland
or on Vancouyers island, south of latitude
20 deg.
BY turning to the map hereto annexed,
and on which the proposed boundary is
markel in pencil, il will be seen that II as
| signs 20 Great Britain almost the entire re-
gion on its north side) drained by the Co
lumbia river, lying on its northern bank
1t is not deemed necessary to state at large
the cl inns of the United States to this te:-
ri,ory, and the grounds on which they rest,
in order to make good the assertion that il
restricts the possessions ofthe United States
within narrower pounds than they are clear
! y entitled to- 1t will be sufficient for this
purpose 10 show that hey are fairly entitled
to he country drained by the river; and 10
the establishment Of this point, the I'M
de gned proposes accordingly to Limit his
remlrks Il! present.
Oar cEins to The portion Of The territory
dlaincI by the Columbia river may be 4 Vi
ded into those we have in our own proper
right, and those We have derived from
France and Spain. We ground the Former
as against Great Britain, on priority of DIS
coVcry and priority Of exploration and set
llemcn'. We rest our claim to discovery,
as against her, on that Of Captain Gray, a
citizen of the United States, who ia the
ship Columbia, ofBoston, pissed its bar and
anchored in the river, ten miles above its
mouth. Oh the 18th of May, 1892; and who
afterwards sailed Up the riser Twelve or ff-
teen miles, and left it on the 20.h of the
same month, calling Columbia" after his
ship, which name it still retains.
On these facts our claim 10 the discovery
and entrance into the river rests. They are
too we'll aticsted 10 be conlrovered. But
they have been opposed by the alleged
! discoveries of Mcages and Vancouver. Ii
IS true that the former explored portion Of
! the &C asl through which the Columbia flows
n o he ocean, in 1888, Give years before
| Captain Gray crossed The bar and anchored
! in the river,) in order 10 ascertain whether
the river, as laid down in the Spanish charts
and called the ST. Roc, existed or not: but
it is equally true that he did rot even dis
cover il. On the contrary, he expressly de-
clarcs, in his account Of the voyage, as the
result Of bis observation, that "we can now
safely assert that tharc is no such river as
! that of ST. Roc, as laid down in the Spanish
ch1ris:" and, as if to penetrate his dsap-
pomtment, he called the promon,o.y lying
north Of The inlet where he expected to dis
cover it, Cape Disappointment, and the in
&c; itself, Deception Bay. 1t is also true
that Vancouver, in April, 1872, explored
the same Coas' bat it is no less 50 that no
! failed TO discover the riyeg-of which his
own journal furnishes the most conclusive
evidence, as we'll as his strong conviction
| that no such river existed. So strong was
it indeed, that when he fell with Captain
gray, shortly afterwards, and was informed
/ by him that he had been olflhe mouth Of q
river, in latitude 46 degrees 10 minutes,
whose outlet vas SO strong as TO prevent his
entering. he remained still ncredulous, and
str ,nsIy expressed himself TO that effect in
! his journal. Il was shortly after this inter-
view that Captain Gray again visited is
mouth, crossed its bar, and sailed up the
river, as has been stated. After he left it,
| he visited Noo,ka Sound, where he commu-
nicated his discover es to Quadra, the SPIN
| ish commandani al that place, aud gave him
chart and description OF tie mouth of the
river. After this departure, Vancouver ar
rived there in September; when he was in
| formed of the discoveries of Capain Gray,
and obtained from Quadra copies OF the
| chart he had left with him. La consequence
| of the information thus Obtained, he was iH-
dnced TO visit again that part of the coast
Ii was during this that he entered the NV
! er. on he ooh October, md made hs sur
| vcy.
| Prom these facts, It's man, fest Tint The
alleged discove ries of Meares aad NancOu-
yer cannot, in the slightest degree, shake
the claim of Captain Gray TO priority odds
covery. Indeed. 50 conclusive is the ev;-
dence in his flvor, tha; it has been attempted
to evade our claim on the novel and wholly
un,enabIe ground that his discovery was
made, not in national, but private vessel.
Such, and SO incouteslahle, is the evidence
of our claim,as against Great Britain-from
priority of discovery, as 10 the mouth OF The
river, crossin its bar entering it.and sailing
up lis streams n the voyage ofCapiain Gray
alone, without taking ialo consideration the
prior discovery of the Spanish navigator,
Heceia, which will be more particularly re-
lerred 10 hereafter
Nor is the evidence of the priority OF or
discovery of tie head-branches ofthe river
and is exploration less conclusive. Before
the treaty was ratified BY which wa acquired
Louisiana, in 1908. an expedition was
planned-a al the beau Of which were placed
Meriwether Lewis and William Ciarke-to
explore The river Missouri and lis principal
Ihranchcs 10 THEN sources, and then 20 seek