The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-12-09
CONGRESS SIONAL.
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE PRES
IDENT'S MESSAGE.
[coNrNUEp.l
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WnalinoiaI, sl0Il Ganla...la. IlAI

,. (B)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, 10Th September, lS44.
The undersigned, American plenipotentiary has
read with attention the counter-statement Of the
British plenipotentary, but without weakening his
confidence in the validity of the title of the United
States tothe territory set forth in his statement
(marked Az As therein set forth, it rests, in the
first place, on priority Of discovery, sustained by
their own proper claims, and those derived from
Spain through the treaty of Florida
The undersigned does not understand the counter
statement as denying that the Spanish navigators
were the first 10 discover and explore the entire
coasts of the Oregon Territory that Heceta was
the first who discovered the mouth Of the Columbia
river nor that Captain Gray was the first to pass its
these, If jointly held by the United States, would
Igive them the priority of discovery which they
claim. On the contrary, it would seem that the
counter statement from the ground il takes, admits
such would be the case ON that supposiiion for il
assumes that Spain, by the Nootka Sound conven-
ton in l790, Invested herself of all claims the ter
ritory, founded on the prior discovery and explora-
tons Of her navigators; and that she could conse-
quenty transfer none to the United States by the
treaty of Florida. Having put aside the claims Of
i Spain by this assumption, the counter-siatenient
next attempts to oppose the claims of the United
Suites by those founded on the voyages of Captains
Cook and Meares, and to supersede the discovery
OF Captain Gray on the ground that Vancouver
sailed farther up the Columbia river than he did
although he effected it by the aid of his discoveries
| and charts.
/ II will not be expected of the undersigned that
he should seriously undertake to repe what he
is constrained to regard assumption,
unsustaned by any reason. II is sufficient, on
his part, to say that in his opinion, there is
nothing in the Nootka Sound convention, or in
the transactions which led to it, or in the cir
cumstances attending it, to warrant the assump-
ton. The convention relates wholly to other SUBJ
jects, and contains not word in reference to the
claims Of Spain. 1t is on this assumption that the
counter-statement rests its objection to the we'll
l founded American claims to priority Of discovery
Without II, there would not be plausible obiec-
ton left to them.
The two next claims on which the United States
rest their title to the territory as set forth in state
ment A, are founded on their proper rig ht and
cannot possibly be affected by the assumed claims
Of Great Britain, derived from the Nootka conven-
ton.
The first Of these is priority of discovery and ex-
poration of the head-waters, and upper portions Of
the Columbia river, by Lewis and Clarke; by which
that great stream was first brought to the knowl-
edge of the world, with the exception of small
portion near the ocean, including its mouth. This
the counter-statement admits; but attempts to set
off against it the prior discovery of Mackenzie of
the head waters of Frazer's river-quite an in
ferior stream, which drains the northern portion of
the territory. II is clear that whatever right Great
Britain may derive from his discovery 1t can, in
no degree, affect the right Of the United States to
the region drained by the Columbia, which may be
emphatically called the river of the territory.
| The next Of these, founded on their own proper
right is priority Of settlement. Il not denied by
the connter-statement, that formed the first set-
Elements in the portion of the territory drained by
the Columbia river nor does it deny that Astoria,
the most considerable of them was restored under
the third article of the treaty of Client, by agents
on the part Of Great Britain duly authorized to make
| the restoration, to an agent on the part Of the
United States duly authorized to receive it. Nor
does It deny that, In virtue thereof they have the
right to be reinstated, and considered the party i'm
possession while treating of the title, as was admit
ted by Lord Castlereagh in the negotiation of 1918;
nor that the convention Of ISlS signed a few days
after the restoration and that of 1897 which is still
in force, have preserved and perpetuated until
all the rights they possessed to the territory at the
time, including that of being reinsated and consid
cred the party in possession while the question of
title is depending, is the case 1t is true il
attempts to weaken the effect of these implied adj
missions-in the first place, by designating positive
treaty stipulations as can understanding between
the two governments" but change of phraseology
cannot possibly transform treaty obligations into a
mere understanding; and, in the next place. by sta
ting that we have not since the restoration of Asto
ria, actually occupied it; but that cannot possibly
affect our right to be renstated, and to be considered
in possession secured to by the treaty of Ghent
implied in the act of restoration and since preserved
by positive treaty stipulations Nor can the re-
marks of the counter-satement in reference to Lord
Castereaghs admission weaken our right of possess
sion, secured by the treaty, and its formal and UNI
conditional restoration by duly authorized agents
1t is these and not the denial of the auhenti-
city Of Lord Castereaghs despatch, that the United
States rest their right of possession, whatever YER
bal communication the British minister may have
made at the time to our Secretary of State; and is
these that they may safely rest il, setting aside
altogether the admission of Lord Castlereagh.
The next claims on which our title to the terrific
ry rest are those derived from Spain by the treaty
ceding Louisiana to the United States, including
those she derived from Great Britain by the treaty
of 1863 II established the Mississippi as ssthe ir-
revocabe boundary between the territories of France
and Great Britain; and thereby the latter surrendered
to France all her claims this continent west of that
river, including, of COURSE all within the chartered
limits Of her then colonies, which extended to the Pa
cfc On these, united with those of France as
the possessor of Louisiana, we rest our claim of
continuity, extending to that ocean, without an
opposing claim, except that Of Spain which we have
since acquired, and consequently removed, by the
treaty of Florida.
| The existence of these claims the counter-state-
ment denies on the authority of Mr. Jefferson; but,
as it appears TO the undersigned, without adequate
reasons. He does not understand Mr.. Jefferson as
denying that the United States acquired any claim
to the Oregon territory by the acquisition of Louis
iann either in his letter of 1909 referred to by the
counter-statemcnt, and from which it gives an ex-
tract in the document Of 1907 to which it also re-
fcrs. 1t is manifest from the extract itself, that the
object of Mr.. Jefferson not to state the extent
of the claims acquired with Louisiana, but simply
to state how far It's unquestioned boundaries extend
ed; and these he limits westwardy by the Rocky
mountains. 1t is, inl like manner, manifest from the
document, as cited by the counter-siaement, that
his object was not to deny that our claims extended
to the territory but simply to express his opinion of
the impocy, in the then state Of our relations with
Spain, Of bringing them forward. This, so far
from denying that we had claims, admits them by
the clearest implication. II, indeed, in either case,
his opinion had been equivocally expressed, the
rtory after the treaty was neg otiated but before il
was ratified, clearly show that il was his opinion
not only that we had acquired claims it, but high
ly important claims, which deserved prompt atten-
ton.
In addition to this denial of our claims to the ter
ritory on the authority Of Mr. Jefferson, which the
evidence relied on does not seem to sustain, the
intimates an objection to continue