The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-18

To prepare the hearts Of the people for oomn.on,.
and peace. That was question Of war, and WIZ,
sort Of war; Was il war they were 10 estinn,N
ny the ships sunk or men slaug hleredl Not AZ .n
That would be most erroneous mode Of eStimslin.
H. indeed. l. would DO war the most destrucriys
Of the elements OF human prosperity that wa. ~
corded IN human history. II would be very 70.
markable one IN this view that not blow this conn
try would have the power 10 inAlet that would no, r.
coil on our own shoulders. They had an interest," in
the affairs Of that power with whom they were Il.
cited 10 go 10 scarcely inferior to that thew b,d
in their own. A picture had been drawn Of IN,
prospects Of this country in case the Union was mr.
served, and he believed nothing could be said ,Y
travagant on that subject. But what was the Iali,
man on which depended the realization OF ths,,
hopesl Peace because peace was essential 10 thAi
expansion and production by which these hopes ar,
TO be realized. In annihiIating peace you annhlA.
commerce, and in annihilaling commerce you ami
hiale all tendency to expansion. Now, he contend,
ed that that question OF war, and war Of IN.
character he had described. IL was not necessary
TO prove that proposition. There was a TERRITORY
which, by their own concession, was held in com.
mon occupation for 30 years. and the convention
under which il was done was the result Of their own
proposition. During that period they had given "A
equal dominion 10 that power; and would any man
say, that II they undertook now 10 settle the eont,o
yersy by the strong hand Of force--by seizing Ii,
whole terrtory-there was a power in the who,
world so contemplate as 10 submit to III They
hid bsen told Of the probability Of Great Bnlair
asserting 10 the seizure Of the whole by m,
United States, and that by those who w.r,
still preaching her arrogance and pride; hul
# she had so much arrogance and pride, nov
is il possible that with these characteristics 81,
would act sol IL they went for the whole Of Or.
gon 1t would be tantamount to declaration that ",
are TO have war. Now he wanted the people of III,
country to be appnsed ofthe real character Of that
war. How had that question assumed the fearful
aspect il then hadi How did it happen that the n,
ations established between the two countries by the
conventions Of 1918 and 1897 were sought to be Dc.
stroyed' II they were to have war il would be on,
entirely unproyoked by our adversary; nor waa il
one that would conduct to the object sought which
was Oregon. Now no man could dispute, that un
der these conventions the occupation Of Oregon wa,
absolutely inevitable by the people Of the United
States il the relations between the United States and
England were not disturbed They were told that
while one Englishman went TO settle there under that
convention one thousand American citizens 70 thst
| they had a right TO do, to occupy il. No on,
could doubt that under that arrangement the peop,
Of the United States in a few years would occupy
It. But Il IL objected that il our citizens
go there they must be followed by protector
But they were not precluded from doing that by h,
provisions Of the convention. They could build
forts, extend their laws, establish Indian agenca
and have military force there. They were pre-
cuded from none Of these-from nothing but one
that was the giving Of territorial rights. Now, al
the new States Of the Union settled in the san,
manner. People had always gone into them a
first squatters, without their territorial rghs
being recorded under the certain conviction thai,
| proper time their rights would be recorded MOI
only would that be war not required, but nothing
| could be more superhuous. IL would not only BEL
war not required, or conducive to its object but II
al. H..
States the realization Of that object Then il would
not be aprovoked war, nor conducive to its object
and he would therefore ask, could it be Just war
| Even il they had clear and unquestionable title
he would ask, was the United States justified in he
course proposed? II he asked what was hs
title of Great Britain, he would say that had she
none other, she had title under the United
States. They had made the conventions, and four
times offered to divide the territory with her,
in which she was not the proposer, but re-
jected the offers. And 1t is at this time,
after so long acknowledging the rights on
| the part Of other nations to make settlements
that we are going to claim the whole: would that be
just or honorable, As TO the question Of title, a
discussion Of it, in all its aspects, had been objected
to. But he thought the people Of the United States
would not assert that title by war, unless 1t was
shown to be clear and unquestionable one. Com
promise and division were the true policy Of the
| United States. He believed the United States had
good title, and he could not think the British gov
eminent had any disposition to contest that title.
But the question was, Had we clear title up to
$40 40i 1t must be admitted they had not under
the Spanish title, derived from the treaty Of 1919
| That title had been ridicued as derived from a
grant from the Pope in l4l9; but he thought it was
not properly the subject ofrdcule The title to the
| great mass of property, municipal as well az ma
tional, was conventional. When, among nations, the
grounds of title have been recognised, it is good
and valid title. the claim of Spain to America,
confirmed by the Pope, was at that time acknowl.
edged by other nations, 1t was good and valid; and
indeed had the pretensions Of Spain, as allowed by
the Pope, not been held as good, there would hard
y have been one Of the States of this Union now
established. But we were the first to attempt 10 in.
validate Me title of Span during the first negoi.
atoms Of 1918. In what position they placed
themselves now, by setting up that title! fright
| now, what were we in 1918 but setting up a
dshones, claim to tits'-for the discovery, Of Gny
could not be good if Spain's title good. II tho
discovery of the mouth Of the Columbia by Gray
gives US valid title, there force in the
Spanish title; if there force in the Spanish title,
then our title by the discovery Of Gray is invalid
The doctrine of the Secretary of State that topic
was mistaken one. He said if we had one ground
,f title and acquired another, could make use Of
10th. That was quite true; but they must not be
! repugnant titles az these were; for il our title by
discovery was good, it must be that that of Spain
was bad; if the Spanish title was good, there was
no force in ours. Another ground there was on
which the title of Spain might be good Undoubt-
eddy she made the first discoveries least she
the first power whose ships sailed along the coast.
But it was replied that discovery gives no solid title
unless followed up by settlement; and she had none
on this coast north OF the Columbia but Nootka,
which was entirely abandoned by Spain. Another
source from which Spain might have derived title
Suppose all the powers of the earth had asssned
to the pretensions Of Spain, they would, although
unsustained by any facts or principles of public
law, have been good by prescri ption But this 10
not so; for during all the time, her claims 10 eIclu.
sive sovereignty were disputed by both Russia and
England, as well as by ourselves. 1t could not
then, be title by prescription. He had been sur
surprised at the extraordinary weight attached 10
the Nootka Sound convention there. 1t had been
said Great Britain had no title but what was derived
from that; but he (Mr. A. maintained that tina
/ convention was not to assert a tie but to ascer
tain one on the part Of Great Britain; and it wal
found from the correspondence of Mr.. Huskissor
in 1924, that Eng land asserted a parity of tit'
with Spain, and that the Nootka convention dxe
and asceraiDs the title Of Great Britain. II Grea
Britain had recognised title in Spain, how could
the contest relative to the seizures of ships which
II ~ L.. l. l,,,