The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1846-01-29
From the Washington Union.
OREGON.

and of our interests in that territory. After
the labor of quarter of century at Lon
don, Lord Ashburton, coming over with full
power TO settle all points in controversy be-
tween ourselves and England, brought the
Oregon negotiation to Washington in lS42.
He and Mr.. Webster could make nothing of
it, and gave il up. The spirit of the treaty
of Washington-let The country mark the
fact-was spirit too stringent and imprac-
ticable in its assertion of our territorial rights,
TO give the noble lord even hope of adjust
ing with it the Oregon dispute. And here
one is tempted to ask what did England ex-
pect? What prodigality Of concession, what
easy profuseness of generosity in the matter
of our territory, did the British cabinet wait
for from our statesmen, in thus suffering the
golden moment for her best possible arrange
ment with us to pass away forever? Eng
land must have seen, by this time, that she
made blunder then. But so it was; Lord
Ashburton and Mr.. Webster soon satisfied
themselves that the Oregon negotiation was
hopeless. They gave it up, and settled in
stead our boundary on the northeast, and
other matters. Then, in l943, came new
special mission from England, charged spe-
cially with the Oregon business on Tie basis
Of compromise For two years Congress has
so far as legislative result is concerned, stood
still awaiting the issue of this negotiation.
And now the President tells Congress dis
tinctly, formally, frankly, "no compromise
which the United States ought to accept can
be effected" Well may the President say
so; for in the same document he shows us
that our government has pushed against its
convictions, and in the hope of compromise,
its concessions to the very last tolerable
limits Of liberalty, and all in vain! And all
in vain, with our demonstration of perfect
tile to what we thus offer for the sake of
peace to relinquish, standing out clear as the
light before both parties! Such is the pre-
sent posture of our negotiations Is it not
portentously ne,o?
We have said that the state of our nego-
tations now is neW. 1t is more. 1t is an
prccedented. Bat for one fact, the failure TO
settle this matter in the present state of our
title, and on our offered concessions, would
be an extraordinary phenomenon. The
existence of one fact---and italope--erplainS
the failure Of every attempt we have of late
made for peaceful adjustment. That fact is
the JOINT OCCUPATION, as is has been
called. While the joint occupation stands,
England wiU scarcely erer aJaStths matter.
Tomorrow, if possible, we will show this
from the documentary evidence of her set
tied policy. But it is enough now to ask,
Why should England come to terms, while
we let the "joint occupation" stand2 Re-
member "jont occupation" is set down by
England Oh hor protocol as being all that she
claims. 1t is more. 1t is all that she has,
for long time to come, any possible use for.
Combined with the action of her Hudson
Bay Company, it is all that she NOW wants.
Does any man suppose that she will ever
negotiate TO an adjustment, SO long as a iai-
lure to adjust only throws her back on this
same joint occupation? She knows her own
interest too well. What, then, is the result
of these things! Why plainly this: Z" "Abro-
gate the contention Of joint occupancy, and
so take the first step to make successful ge--
gotiations possible" That convention o6ce
abrogated, the whole negotiation-now hope
less and abandoned-comes home 10 Eng
land with the mighty pressure of new and
fearful alternative. All history shows, (es-
pecially all British hstory,) that it is only
under the pressure ofster alternatives that
negotiation honorable to both parties ever
reaches It's end in peace. Under such pres
sure just and honorable negotiation may,
and we believe will, in this instance, pre-
vail.