The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-18

foot rebellions 10 Scotland and Ireland; but il wa
several years before these nirigues broke out int
the open hostility, Of which the chief incident wa
the destruction Of the nyineible Armada (Sir, th
contradiction of terms is the work Of history no
mine.) Yet Elizabeth, after brakes return 4
England, on the application Of the Spanish ambas
sador complaining Of his piraces, restored por
ton Of the booty he had taken and by this resto
ration admitted the unlawfulness Of his expedition
| IL Is only necessary TO look into Hume 10 see il
what light il has always been viewed by the eye o
legitimate history. Sir, il should need some bold
ness, one would think, 10 set up claim even 4
| priority Of discovery" on the basis Of transac
ton like this
| 2, Lord Clarendon states that the country ada.
cent TO the Columbia river, was taken possession Of
IN 1872 by Captain Cook. Sir, Captain Cook never
saw the Columbia river, or landed, in the mmed
ately adjacent country. His visit was TO Nootko
sound, on the island Of Quadra and Vancouver,
separated from the continent by the strait of Fuea
His voyage is referred by Lord Clarendon to the
year 1872 Il was in fact, made in l77S, fourteen
years before the Columbia river entered or even
certainly known TO exist Ten years after Cook s
voyage TO the coast, Mesres, whose explorations
the British government partially rests It's title re-
ported he could say with certainty, no such river as
the st. Roc (the Columbia) existed. -Four years
later still, Vancouver after most careful examine
ton OF the coast, came 10 the conclusion as
We have seen. Sir, Lord Csrendos evidently con.
founded the voyage Of Cook with that of Vancou-
yer, without an accurate reference TO either.
3. IL Is equally erroneous TO say, that the north
west company explored the country in 1913, and
established themselves in Port ST. George. Expop-
tons had been made, first by Lewis and Clarke mill
tary officers in the service Of the United States and
then by Thompson and Others in the service Of the
British and American fur companies. But no
particular explorations, | believe, were made in
the year referred TO- The stock and property Of
the American company at Astoria were sold to the
Nail IL. -
was restored TO the United States in 1918,
and no attempt was made by tho government
OF Great Britain TO extend its laws over any part Of
the territory until 1921, eight years after the time
which Lord Clarendon represents Astoria as being
under the government Of British laws, having the
character OF national establishment Of Great Brit
ain, and recognised such by foreign nations. Sir
II has never possessed such national character or
been so recognised. II his lordship had taken the
trouble TO look at the statement Of the British COM
missioners, (MesSrs. Huskisson and Addington, J
in 1926, he would have found they distinctly dc.
MED that II was "a national possession" or "a mil
Itary post" in the hands OF the Americans and thew
endeavored to show by argument that il was moi
such IN the hands Of the Northwest Company AFTER
its purchase Its restoration TO in 1918 is in COM
pauble with the assumption. that il has such ma
tionsl character now. The assumption is equally
inconsistent with the conditions Of the treaties be-
tween Great Britain and the United States which
sovereignty on her part to give any establish
ments made by her subjects a character Of nation
atty. Nay, SIR II "a inconsistent with the claims Of
Great Britain herself, whose commissioners in |
1926 expressly renounced all pretensions to right
Of exclusive sovereignty over any portion Of the
Oregon territory. IL is difficult to fancy paragraph
Of as many words so pregnant with error as the
one which am commenting.
l regret 10 say that the subject presented 10 |
The House Of Commons with, If possible, still great |
er misrepresentation, and from equally distin. |
yuished source; though might not have felt myself
tailed on 10 notice them, but for their connexion
with the incidents have been examining, and par
cularly the question OF title.
The subject was introduced into the House Of |
Commons by Lord John Russell, a distinguished |
member Of the late ministry, much in the same |
manner 1t was presented to the House of Lords
not in the shape of call for information but in the
nature OF protest against some Of the positions
AIKEN by the President in his inaugural speech. |
viii read 10 the Senate that part of his lord
hips remarks which relates to the discovery Of the |
Columbia river, one Of the principal historical facts
IN which the United States rest their claim to the
.e-n territory.
~ the British government discover line 8fe5fRt out
take possession Of certain parts laid down in his nsruc
ions and here to another part Of the claims of the
United ststesto part OF their claims where they put In
proceed to relate II appears that merchant vessel
sllcd the Columbia, under Captain Gray, discovered
appears that after days in the month Of MAJ 1872
'sssed partly at anchor and partly in endeavorng to
nto the Pacific There very clear given
" Captain Gray, the commander of that vessel that AFTER
ome days, he says, we thought had found channel
We found mistaken There is 20 channel in the
art which endeayored to penetrate, and therefore
must return shortly alter this Captain Vancouver arrived
the He only into the inlet, but lac
rent his eutenanta Lieutenant Broughton-to discover
Lieutenant Broughton was more successful than Captain
Gray He actually discovered the entrance OF the Columbia
nce think Of some 90 or 100 miles He discovered the
errtory surrounding IT, agreed that the river should
called BY the name OF and Lieutenant Brough
returned TO his ship But Captain Vancouver took pos
session OF that river, the adjacent and the Nootks
ound, in the name of his majesty the king of England
tile" ' "''' ''''s u ''"'
| confess it was with equal regret and surprise
hat read this statement of transaction which has
become matter of history, and in respect to the facts
If which there is no reasonable ground for serious
| have looked in vain for the quo
alton Lord John Russell processes to make from
Captain Gray. There is no such statement in the
only account which have seen given by the lat
er of the discovery of the Columbia river His
ordshp goes TO state that Vancouver shortly af-
er arrived the coast, and not only went into the
Met, but sent in Lieutenant Broughton, "who ac
ually discovered the entrance to the Columbia
river" Now, the Senate will observe that, in or
Ter to sustain this most unauthorized assumption,
almost all the important facts relating to the
discovery of the Columbia river are kept out
Of vew-the meeting of Gray with Vancouver
On the 29th April, 1892, five months previously,
near the strait of Fuca; the information given by
Gray to the latter of the discovery Of the river and
Of his unsuccessful attempts TO enter il; the doubt
Of Vancouver to the fact and his continued con-
viction that no such river existed the return of
Gray to the river, his in entering it, his ex-
cursion Is miles up the stream, trading with the
lives nine successive days, and landing to examine
the country; his charts of the river left with Quadra
by the aid of which Vancouver, who had obtained
copies, enabled to find the stream, and send up
his lieutenant, Broughton, to explore it. say, sir,
all these material facts are suppressed-l trust not
sustain the unfounded assumption
hat Broughton was the discoverer Of the Columbia,
But it is worthy Of remark that Mr.. Falconer, re-
spectacle British writer, who has recently published
!, pamphlet on Oregon, and who wrote about the
lime Lord John Russell spoke, admits that Gray
was the first person who noticed the Columbia river
After Hecea, and comedies the discovery to the lat
ter Happily, the historical facts are too well au-
henticatea TO be permanently misunderstood. They
were well known at the time, that even the RI |
valrynot to say the deraction Of the day--conced-
ed to Gray the merit of the discovery by designating
he Yiyerh y he anoe he i,--tbe or ~