The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-12-11

impair It's force.
II is commended on the part OF Great Britain, tina
the United States acquired and hold the Spanish ii
tie subject TO the terms and conditions Of the Nootll
Sound convention concluded between Great Britain
and Spain, at the Escurial, on the 26tl October
! 1890.
In opposition to the argument Of the undersigned
contained 10 his statement marked j. b, maintains
ing that this convention had been annuled 10y the
war between Spain and Great Britain, In l196, and
has never since been revived by the parties, the
British plenpoteptiary, in his statement marked
H. T., has taken the Following positions
/ ]. "'rhat when Spain concluded with the United
States the treaty of 1919, commonly called the Flor
ida treaty, the convention concluded between the
former power aud Great Britain, in 1880, was con-
sideed by the parties to il to be still in force"
And =. "But that, even it no such treaty had ever
existed, Great Britain would stand, with reference
to claim 10 the Oregon territory, in position a,
I least as favorable the United Staesn
The undersigned will follow, step by step, the
gument of the British plenipotentary in support Of
these propositions.
The British plenpoientiary states ''that the rea-
y of 1890 is not appealed to by the British govern
lnent, as the American plenpotentiary seems to
suppose as their main reliance in the present dis
CUSTOM" but To shoH that, by the Florida treaty
of 1919, the United States acquired no right to ex-
elusive dominion over any part of the Oregon ter.
ritory.
The undersigned had believed that ever since
I 1896, the Nootka convention has been regarded by
the Brit sh government their main, if not their
only reliance. The very nature aud peculiarly OF
their claim identified il with the construction which
they have imposed upon this convention, and neces-
sariy excludes every other basis Of title What but
TO accord with this construction could have caused
Messrs. Huskisson and Addngton, the British COM
mlssloners, IN specifying their title; on the 10th De-
cember, 1896 TO declare ''that Great Britain claims
no exclusive sovereignty over any portion OF that
territory. Her present claim, not in respect to any
part, but to the whole, is limited to right Of joint
occupancy IN common with other states, leaving the
right of exclusive dominion in allegiance" And
again: "By that convention (of Nootka) it was
agreed that all parts of the northwestern coast of
America, not already occupied at that time by either
of the contracting parties, should henceforward be
! equally open TO the subjects of both for a pur-
poses Of commerce and seitement--the sovereignty
remaining in allegiance" But on this subject we
are not left to mere differences, however clear The
British commissioners, in their statement from which
the undersigned has lust quoted, have virtually
abandoned any other title which Great Britain may
have previously asserted 10 the territory IN dispute,
and expressly declare Shat whatever that title may
have been, however, either on the part of Great
Britain the part Of Spain, prior the conven-
ton of $780, ii encetorioard longer to be traced
IN rague narratives Of discoveries, several # them adj
united 10 be apocrlphai but IN the tert aud stpulctions
| IF that convention itself"
fha as"h, III summing up theiI Whoie case, lEey
say:
"Admit,ng that the United States have ACQUIRED
all the rights which Spain possessed up the treaty
of Florida either in virtue of discovery or, ia
pretended, in right of Louisiana Great Britain MAIN
tains that the nature and extent Of these rights as
well as the rights Of Great Britain, are fixed and
defined by the convention Of Nootka, &c, &c. &c
The undersigned, after careful examination, can
discover nothing in the note Of the present British
penipocntiary to MIR. Calhoun, Of the 18th Sep,em-
1 Der last 10 impair the force of these declarations
and admissions Of his predecessors. On the con.
trary, lis general tone is in perfect accordance with
| them.
Whatever may be the consequences, then, whe,h-
for good for evil-whether to strengthen or TO
destroy the British claim--it is now too late for the
British government to vary their position. If the
! Nonika convention coniers upon them such
rights ms they claim, they cannot at this late hour
go behind its provisions, and set up claims which,
in 1896, they admitted had been merged ain the text
! and stipuauons of that convention itself.n
! The undersigned regrets that the British plenipo-
tertiary has not noticed his exposition of the true
! construction of the Nooka convention. He had
endeavorcd, and he believes successfully, to prove
that this treaty transient in ITS very nature; that
it conferred upon Great Britain no right but that OF
merely trading with the Indians whilst the country
should remain unsettled, and making the necessary
establishments for this purpose; and that it did not
i interfere with the ultimate sovereignty of Spain
over inc territory. INC DieHlpOtcntldTy nus
not attempted to resist these conclusions. If they
be fair and legitimate, then it would not avail Great
! Britain, even il she should prove the Nootka con-
ven,ion to be still in force. On the contrary this
convention if the construction placed upon il by the
j undersigned be correct, contains clear virtual adj
mission on the part of Great Britain that Spain held
the eventual right Of sovereignty the whole dis
pued terrtory and consequently that il now belongs
| to the United States
The value of this admission, made in 1870, is the
same whether or not the convention has continued
to exist until the present day. But he is willing to
! leave this point the uncontroverted argument
| contained in his former statement.
But is the Nootka Sound convention still in force
1 The British plenipotentary does not contest the
clear general principle of public law, "that war ter
inmates all subssting treaties between the beliger-
ent powers" He contends, however, in the first
place, that this convention is partly commercial; and
that so far as il partakes Of this character it
vved by the treaty concluded at Madrid the 18th
! August 1914 which declares "that all the treaties
of commerce which subsisted between the two par
ties (Great Britain and SPAIN in 1876, were there
! by ratified and confrmed;n and, I'd, "that in other
! respects it must be considered as an acknowledge
nent Of subsisng rghts--an admission of certain
principles of international law, not to be revoked
| by war.
| In regard to the first proposition, the undersigned
is satisfied to leave the question to rest upon his for.
| mer argument as the British penipoentiary has
!
that the commercial portion of the Nootka Sound
convention revived by the treaty Of 1914 with
out even specifying what he considers to be that
portion of that convention. If the undersigned had
desired to strengthen his former position, he might
have repeated with great effect the argument con-
tanned in the note OF Lord Aberdeen TO the Duke Of
Sotomayor, dated 30th June, lS45, in which his
lordship clearly established that all the treaties of
commerce subsisting between Great Britain and
| Spain previous to 1796 confined to the trade
with Spain alone, and did not embrace her colonies
and remote possessions.
| The second proposition of the British plenipoten-
tiary dcserves greater attention. Does the Nootka
Sound convention belong to that class Of treaties
containing can acknowledgment Of subsisting
rghts-an admission of certain principles Of inter-
national law" not to be abrogated by war; Had
Spain by this convention acknowledged the right of
all nations to make discoveries, plant settlements,
and establish colonies, the northwest coast OF
America, bringing with them their sovereign juris-
diction there would have been much force in the
argument. But such an admission never was