The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-06-28
BoRN on THE l5rH OF MARCH, 1857;
Dip ON THE sTH OF JUNE, lS45.

The proof of the National Intelligencer is rather
short Of its conclusion. We asserted that the wing
press did not object TO the expression in the naugu-
raj about our rights to Oregon being 'clear and un-
questionable, and that they waited for the English
orators and press to give them the cue as to the
extent Of the claim set up. And how does the Ma
tonal lntelligencer combat this proposition Why,
by quoting the following passage from that paper
of March 6, Sthe day after the publication of the
addrcss:)
"The points OF the adasess pich particularly object
the euogy Of the odosS veto power the
vate distress which followed the refusal to renew the char
the deunc Bank of the United sates all that part
necessary introduction into such document Of Tr OREeoN
QUESTION, qualified though be nth the nSaiion aat Emery
g@pd 70 aat Matter should saered respected We sincerely
wish that the President had confined hmsefto the enunca
ton respect foreign relations, principles
such he has expressed in the following sentences
"n the management OF foreign relations it will be
my aim observe careful respect for the rights Of other
nations, while own will be the subject Of constant
wachfuness Equal and exact justice should
all our intercourse with foreign countries
"These maxms which, If faithfully adhered to- can
fail point the President to an honest policy and
TO him an honorable fame"
Now, it is obvious enough, upon the very face Of
this extract that the National lniegencer does moi
object to the claims which the President sets up; but
to the introduction Of the Oregon question at ALL (as
well as other points II even admits that the Pres
ident has qualified its introduction, with the ntma-
ton of the respect which was to be paid to the obga
tons of the treaty. What the British object to, is
not that il is introduced at all but that it extends
our claims SO far.
The Intelligencer, indeed, in its last Tuesdays
article, takes the specific objection that the President
laws down our rights so broadly, after Of his
predecessors had negotiated for a compromise. But
this issue was not made in March last, and it was
left for the British to take it, and carry it out in
rions specifications On this question Of compro-
mise, either by itself, or in its connection with the
inaugural, we must be excused from entering. l
is in wiser and safer hands than our own; ant
there we, as well as the National lntelgencer, arr
under some obligation to leave it, And yet w
should not be surprised, if the administration wer
| to adopt any compromise at all, that the NaiIona
| Intelligencer would be the first TO pounce dow
upon it, Notwithstanding even now that journa
says that
president Polk himself in his inaugural address gave
meaning and key to the passage on the subject
escaped the perspicacity Of the official exponent Of hi
| views) that in the time every obligation imposed b.
treaty conventional spulsons should De saered respect
Notv outstanding this qualification, did, however.
we have shown also did many other wing gea
y regret the introduction Of the topic into the inaugural
liable TO be msapprehended as II has oeen ooh az nom
and abroad