The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-06-02

Title 10 what is now called oregon.
L. The treaty Of Uttecht provides for the estab-
shment of line between the British and French
aolonies, including the Hudson Bay Company The
British held nothing west of the eompanys posses
slons, which, by the charters, included only the
lands countries, and territories" on the waters rum
ning into Hudson's bay. ... ....
S. II England established this line to the Pacific
ocean, she can have no claim south Of IL and this
kind OF argument adj hOnlinem becomes conclusive,
And LEI me add that owe this argument To my
friend from Missouri, [Mr. ATcHIsoS,l 10 whose
remarks upon Oregon the Senate listened with pleas.
ure and with profit some time SINCE
g. How could France aud England claim the
country TO the Pacific TO divide between them
IA l7l3, when, late as 1890. the British govern
nent, by the Nootka convention, expressly recOg-
1ised the Spanish title to that country and claimed
only the Of il for It's own subject, IN common
with those Of SPAIN
To these will now add
7. Nootka Sound is north Of latitude ago lf the
limits under the treaty Of Utrecht established that
parallel as the southern boundary Of the British
possessions TO the northwest ocean, how happened
4 that in the great controversy Of 1890, between
Spain and England, this conclusive fact was never
adyered TO by one party, nor by the other Strange,
indeed, that so decisive consideration should have
escaped the observation of the Spanish sta'eImen;
and still more strange that 1t should have escaped
the searching investigation, which the stJect un-
derwent in the British House Of Commons, by
Pit and Fox and the other spirits OF that day
The controversy could DOT have existed # this dis
Soyery had been then made.
| So would this question stand If Spain had been
party 10 the treaty Of Utrecht, had been bound
by any arrangement made by France and England,
Tor the establishment Of line between their respec
i've territories But the fact is, that any such
tangement for the partition OF the country west OF
yhe Rocky mountains impossible, from the cir
Sumstances Of the times, and from the position OF
those three powers. The treaty Of Utrecht terml-
hated the long and bloody war which arose out OF
DIE Spanish succession. Louis XIV succeeded IN
placing his grandson Philip upon the throne
Of SPAN. France and Spain closely connected,
and had fought the war together. They were aleS,
and the enemies of England. The Spanish jealousy
OF that and Of the following age respecting the Span
h possessions, especially those upon the Pacific, 10
well known and, at that time, other power inter
posed an adverse claim to that region. IL is utterly
Incredible, that IN such state of things, France
would consent TO the extension OF the British pos.
sessions to the northwest coast and least Of ALL that
she would make herself a party to such fragrant
act Of injustice. II was not a single treaty OF
Utrecht which put an en- end 10 the There
were different treaties formed The one between
France and England was a treaty of peace, and
also for a treaty for the regulation of com
nerce and for the establishment Of boundaries.
That between Spain and England was a treaty OF
peace and commerce only and contained no supula-
tons respecting boundary. An effort by France and
England TO divide the country upon the northwest
toast between them, would have been resisted by
Spain act Of war. Instead Of any such effort,
this pretension Of their right appropriate to them
selves country unknown to them, now seriously
asserted in the American Senate, has been unreyeaI-
ed 10 the world, till called into existence at this late
day, and announced without any real evidence to
support II, means of settling a controversy
about limits, in a region, which neither France nor
England had explored, aud to a foot Of which they
never laid claim.
shall briefly allude TO one other topic, and then
abandon this discussion. While | was happy to
hear the honorable senator ayow his determination
support the recommendations Of the President in
his annual message at the commencement of the
present session the subject of Oregon, | deeply
regretted TO find, at the time, that in the far
most important point, he differs essentially from
the President, and proposes a course which, II
seems to me, not only impolitic and unusual, but
which will necessarily lead to the loss Of one half
ofthe country in dispute, and may lead to division
of the other half The President proposes the as
sertion of our jurisdiction over Oregon. The hon
orabe senator proposes its assertion over only about
one moiety Of Oregon. This is fundamental diff
ference, which no argument can reconcile. Theex-
tent of the Oregon Of the President is known to all
Iof US. Ii is the same Oregon which eXcites such
deep socitude among the American people. IL is
bounded north by the parallel Of $40 40, as sn-
nounced by Mr.. Buchanan in letter to the British
. minister dated July IL, ls45. 1t is the same Ore
gon which is claimed by the British, and over
| which they have extended their jurisdiction. Bot
the Oregon of the honorable senator stops at 400
his line dividing what neither nature political
rights destined to a division.
| And why, sir, why does the honorable senator,
in opposition to the repeated declarations Of the
| American government, and to the strong feelings of
the American people, erect barrier upon the paral-
lei Of ago, saying, Thus far you may come, but no
further Why does he insist upon legislative
annunciation which, while 1t could not give the
country to that parallel would forever deprive of
all hope of the country beyond IL this question is
placed upon the ground Of expediency, and if that
artificial line upon the surface of the globe is
sumed as reasonable line of ompromise-reason-
liable because dividing the country into two nearly
Iequal parts and because IL has been several times
offered by the American government TO the British
government, limit of concession-then find no
fault with those who take this view Of the matter,
and who propose thus to terminate the controversy.
He who believes that both parties have equal
title to the territory in question, or that any obga-
ton is created by offers Of compromise heretofore
made and rejected, may well look upon the parallel
of 49o as just and equitable line of partition. re-
peat, find no fault with this view of the matter
But this is not the view of the senator from Mssou-
RI He says the parallel of AGO is The line of right ere
sailing from the treaty of Utrecht" "Thus, says
the senator, "the line of right is the best for both
partes" &c. "Forty-nine is the line Of right Nth
i me-" &c. ... ..-HC e. ...g.
4 And why is this the line of right Because il was
established by the treaty of Utrecht. IL not thus
established, it is line Of right. And he who seeks
SO to establish it must prove it. Let the honorable
senator prove it. submit to him. if the loose and
contradictory notices he has brought forward, are
sufficient proofs of the existence Of great line of
national demarcation, under any circumstances, and
still less, under existing circumstances, contradcted
as they are by the highest considerations, and by
the most respectable authorities. submit to him,
whether it is wise to stop his counrys pretensions
without the most irrefragabe evidence, that his
country is wrong.
Is there such evidence The senator refers again
to the progress of this negotiation, and invokes the
acts of Mr.. Jefferson and Of Mr.. Madison, indi-
cative of their opinion. shall not go this
ground, only recalling that all this was before the
Florida treaty. and before the discovery Of the
respecting the line of Utrecht Our rights have
since then been extended by purchase, and made
known by correct historical Investigations
| The senator says:
ut s the line Of right, resulting from the treaty OF
hlNNaNa looked To- In the carly stagng