The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-22

A
read extracts from an unofficial communication
made by the British ministers, in 1906, to Messrs
Monroe and Pinckney, our ministers at that time IN
London, and by them communicated 10 our owl
government IL 10 the substance Of the complaints
| OF the Canada merchants against the governor Of
louisiana for excluding them from that province
ana their application TO the British government to be
restored TO H. The whole paper is in our State pa
pers Of that period, and may there be read al length
by any one who desires IT, .aa---'-.sz
Extra official communication 9th y,ggyd 10 he Canada
bads." December 81, lsO6
"A memorial has been presented to Lord Holland and
forth variety Of Injuries which they complain
sustained from the government servants OF the limited
and redress obtained for them in the which
at present pending between the American British com
"The injuries brought forward In thsir memorial NAV be
reduced to the three following heads l. Thar srelusion
by third article ofths treaty Of 1874 il ia agreed that
shall at all times Dc free 70 his Majsys subjects and
the eidLrns Of this United States freely pass by land
inland navigation into the respective territories and coun
tries OF the two parties the continent Of America
navigate all the lakes and waters thereof and freely
~ on trade with each other"
But notwithstanding this express stipulation which Sc
cures to his majesty subjects, without limitation
yaon the right o. commercial intercourse BY land or in
land navigation with all the territories Of the United States
on the continent Of Americas hs governor Of Losana Aai
o.sAi PrePu 70 szsluas tAsm from "a. sOssJes Of that
majesty and take an oath Of allegiance 70 the United
and the governor has also upon him prohibit
the property Of citizens Of the United ststssS
This arbitrary proceeding besides being direct viola.
ton OF the treaty Of 1894 10 highly detrimental to the pr
interest ofhs Canada merchants for excludes them
from country where they have been carrying trade
sueesssa lor many ysan Without interruption IRON the
even to the banks Of the Missouri and augmented the sale
Of their good. in Louisiana to the amount Of about forty
my thousand pounds annually"
This is the somplaint-excluson from Louisiana
by the United States governor Of that province. We
took possession Of Upper Louisiana in March, 1904;
the complaint was made In London in 1906; conse-
quenuy, the exclusion was enforced very soon
after We took possession. The question now is
upon what authority did the governor act in making
this exclusion, and 10 what line did he extend iI
Doubtless by order Of his own government; but il is
good TO be certain; and IN the case Of Mr.. Green
how's oyershsdowing authority, backed as il is by
the senator from Michigan, ii becomes necessary TO
prove everything, even that a governor Of upper
Louisiana had the authority Of his government for
the boundaries Of his province Fortunately the frs
governor OF upper Louisiana was a man Of letters
as well as OF the sword, and employed his leisure
hours in drawing up history Of the country which
he was sent To govern. IL was Major Amos Slod-
dard, who afterwards lost his life at Fort Meigs.
during the late with Great Britain. In his use
ful work, modesty called "SksieAes Of Louisiana y"
he thus speaks Of the northern boundary of his pro-
vince:
The Of Crozat by the terms Of the patent
extended to the limit Of Louisiana IN that quarter
which BY the treaty Of Utrecht in ms fixed at the
This is Major Stoddart's account Of this northern
boundary, and Of the line from which and by which
he excluded British traders from Louisiana. He
did by virtue Of the line Of Utrecht; and no Brit
ish minister in that day did or would deny its ex-
istence, or impugn its validity Lords Holland and
Auckland, to whom the complaint Of the Canadian
merchants was made, refused present il officially
to our ministers. They do not, in fact, appear to
have spoken word on the subject, or done any
thing more than present their memorial to our min
listers. Certain it is, the complaint remained with.
out redress.
But the efforts of the British fur-traders did not
stop at this repulse. The next year the Earl Of
Selkrk, head Of the Hudson Bay Company, went
TO London to renew the complaints Of the fur
traders in more formal manner, and to claim their
to the privileges of trade within the limits
Of Louisiana. That gentleman, as head Of the Hud-
son Bay Company-as founder Of the colony on
Lake Winipee-as the person most injured by the
exclusion Of British traders from Loui sana-ous ht
10 know something about his own rights and
wrongs: and in bringing these before the British
ministry for redress, ought to be supposed to state
his case as strongly as truth and justice would al
low. He does so; but not strongly enough to deny
the fact Of the line Of ago under the treaty OF Utrecht
That line was doing him all the mischief the short
remedy was to deny Its existence, if it could be de-
MED. On the contrary, he admits the fact Of former
existence and only argues against present existence
and present applicability. His argument is, first,
that the treaty Of Utrecht not revived by the
treaty of Amiens OF 1901 and therefore, that il wa
abrogated by war; and secondly, that the long oc-
cupation Of the St. Peters river and of the Missouri
above the Mandan villages, without objection from
the Spaniards, was an admission Of their right 10
trade in Louisiana, and should be conclusive upon
the United States. In memorial to Lord Holland
in 1907, he presents these views at much length
and sbaDo Nto &c
specimens:
ding with the American plenipotentae, the boundaries
between the province OF Louisiana and the British imer
ran domnions beg leave to call your attention
sour Britain preferable claim About latitude a. the
British traders coming in from the Hudson Bay territories
traffic with the Mandan Indians These ira.
iers the first Europeans who obtained any
course OF that river from the Mandans up to the Rocky
mountains, with great minueness many years before the
Britain to the upper Missouri country equally valid
the ground her claim Nootka sound and
ocean. There abundance of grounds
denying that there any rights the American gov
to found its claim on the stpGlaton' othe treaty
If Utrecht the limits of the Hudson Bay territories
hat treaty were for Canada not Louisiana Allow
ne only briefly to observe that the treaty Of Utrecht
nave Been available France she had remained
peace with us and in possession of Louisiana"
Thus argues the Earl of Selkrk, admitting the
act of boundaries fixed under the treaty of Utrecht
md only arguing against the present existence and
applicability Of these boundaries. Lord Holland
adopted none Of these views; he presented the paper
without comment to the American ministers, who
n sending it home to their government characterized
as an idle paper" and took no further notice OF
t. 1t was, in fact, idle paper but not quite idle
enough, in any sense of the word to deny the work
Of the oommissaries under the treaty of Utrecht.
But to go on with the proofs.
In the year 1905, being the second year after the
acquisition Of Louisiana, President Jefferson sent
ministers to Madrid, Messrs. James Monroe and
Charles Pinkney, to adjust the eastern and south
boundaries with her; and, in doing SO, the
principles which had governed the settlement Of the
northern boundary of the same province became
proper illustration of their IDEAS They quoted
hese principles, and gave the line of Utrecht as the
example; and this to Don Pedro Cevallos, one of
he most accomplished statesmen of Europe. They
Jay to him:
al" Is believed that this principle has been admitted and
cted on invariably since the discovery of America in re-
pect 10 their possessions there by all the European pow
II is particularly illustrated by tho stipulaons of