The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-15

position in Parliament and was complaining Oh ANU
Directing to the Nootka conventions but DID Mf'
Pin the then prime minister, eonuoyer the posi-
lions taken by his talented opponent did SHy mem
Der of the British cabinet were the positions
controyerted by any one during the debate NO,
air, not a word of il, Mr.. Pitt, in his response,
only claimed that they had additional facilities Tor
their fisheries, had temporary use OF the territory
north of Nootka for hunting and trading WIN
the natives, and the erection OF temporary mus
farherance Of those objects. He says
lfthsy had acquired no territorial rights they had gain
cd some advantages they did not before possess"
believe this is perfectly conclusive, and shows
how this convention was understood at the time.
IL always appeared to me, MIR. President, that tho
views taken by the BRUSH minister suicidal OF
the claims Of Great Britain. Mr. Pakenham has
said this convention Is in force up to the present
time Bot let me ask IL h IL IN force how does Il
happen that she never claimed under it the country
down TO the bay of SEN Francisco How does it
happen, that Great Britain, who has shown II her
constant purpose TO lay hold Of every foot OF this
earth she can has never claimed an far as the bay
II San Francisco Why, she felt she had no right
and il she has ever done since, IL was altogether
al shsrthought, for the purpose Of opposing
our claims. Nothing else can account Tot It.
Great Britain slept over her absurd claim for moro
than thirty years, and until she found II necessary
10 adduee new and more plausible arguments to
sustain her unfounded prstensions, and eDdeavor to
rebut and weaken the irrcfrsgabls fats and arsu-
inents" by which our American rights were demon
,trated, and she was driven 10 claim under The
Nooiks convention because she had nothing else TO
bring forward-nothing else 10 rely on.
l will not go through the argument, as the Seere-
tsry OF State has done % show dat the convention
vas terminated by the war. Il u not needed sus-
Tain my argument. But the exposition Of Great
Britain herself shows thu he oonveation vas ended
by the war of 1876. WAsi dos Mr.. Pakenham
say on this point His ground b, that there are
some national rights WHICH, survsve a war; but he
has not pointed them out He ays the treaty was
revived In 1914; but :eontead that, II il
dead il could not be revived by the treaty Of 1914,
because there Other parties there besides Great
Britain and Span who had claims on the coast az
veil as themselves We were actually In posses-
SION Of the country st the tmo, and could not be
put out by the revival Of the Nootka convention.
There is one argument not used by Mr.. Buchanan,
or any one else that have seen, which ! con-
sider as having great force. IL the Nootka con-
vention is still in force, what became of il in
convention Of le27i In 1913, we were not in pos
session Of the Spanish ute; but when it was
newed in 1927 we had then all the rights ofSpain,
including sovereignty, the snrtnsni domain, and all
the rights she had under the Nootka convention.
IT, them the convention 10 in force at this hour, how
IL possible this was not included in the conyen.
ton Of 1872 IL was; and Great Britain and the
United STATES owned all the claims TO Oregon which
were then in existence; all her rights under The
Nootka convention were "limited" 10 joint oecu-
pancy with Spain---Spsin puts US in her shoes.
When the convention for joint occupancy IL ter
minated, England goes back to her original
rights. Rights TO WHAT To joint occupancy For
be it observed, England abandoned to Spain all
her claims prior TO 1870, entering into the Moot
ka convention, and declares TO the world that her
whole claim or pretenson is "hmitsd' to joint oc-
cupancy with Spain and her right is only to be found
in "the text and nipulations" Of that conventions
and Spain having on the 22d ofJuly, 1879 transfer
red her rights TO u.s. England has a joint occupancy
with US by the ention Of 1927, by the I'D article
Of which It is agreed, that nothing In the convention
"shall be construed to impair, or IN any manner
affect the claims which either OF the contracting par
ties may have to any part Of the country westward
of the Stony or Rocky mountains" Now then,
pray what are her claims, which are not "afeced"
or aimpaired'T She has none whatever but that OF
'joint occupancy" under the Nootka convention
which was merged in the convention Of 1927, and
thus tho termination OF her joint occupancy
would not "afeetn or "impair" her Joint occu.
pancy." This is a contradiction in terms and
shows that the only claims that are not affected
or impaired must be those Of soperetgny. eminent
domain, or title Of some kind not one OF which
does she possess, or claim. This may be call
ed "choppng loger by gentlemen on the other side
Of the chamber; If it ia, lot them show how Great
Britain can escape the conclusion. think the in
terence irrssistbls, and the "qiod srai demonsran,
dunn" of the mathsmatician, might be fairly and
L ~,
claim, by her own showing, TO one foot Of territory
vest OF the Rocky mountains She has completely
ripped up her own heels, and thrown herself out of
Al, shadow Of claim belop, or even abope the magical
inc Of $40 40-and that we possess # not perfect
undoubtedly the best title in existence to the whole
| pray YOU to observe, Mr.. President that fth"
Nootks sound convention is in force as claimed by
the British minister, then Great Britain could have
done no act during its existence to vest any erclu
sire right in herself Vancouvers exploration of the
Columbia river in, 1884, and taking possession in
he name of the king of England, was void act on
his part, and in violation ofthe "text and stipua
rionsn Of the Nootka convention, and instead Of
claiming under it as the British government have
| modestly done, they ought at the time to have
| cashiered Vancouver and dismissed him from her
| service for thus trampling upon the good faith OF
| the British nation The exploration of Mackenzie
and the settlements subsequently, made in that ter
ritory on Frazer's river and elsewhere, cannot be
claimed as giving exclusive rights to Great Britain
They were made solely under that convention and
under which che can claim no exclusive right tor
herself And allow me to observe, IN add,tIon that
the 81 article Of the treaty between the United States
and Great Britain Of 10Th October, 1918, applies TO
sany country that may be claimed by either party
on the northwest coast of America westward of the
| Soney mountains" and thus includes the whole
country from latitude 42o to the Russian possessions
latitude $40 49, and all the region east of the Rus
sian possessions and west Of the Rocky mountains.
The Russian line going through Portland channel
to latitude $50, and thence line parallel to the coast
10 marine leagues ,hererom 70 I4lst degree of lon
yitude, and in that meridian to the Frozen ocean,
| All which northern region is included within the
conventions of 1918 and 1897 and which have never
seen any reference to in any speech devered and yet
liz is manifest our joint occupancy extends to the
whole, and the rights of each to every part be de-
,ermned whenever division Of territorial rights
shall be made. -. ~. ~
/ cannot, Mr.. President, permit, myself, to pass
Iunnotced the title which have to the country
drained by the waters Of the Columba-by the ex,
er,ion and enterprise of our own ctzens--acqulred
by our own discovery exploration, and settlement.
II BARE naked discovery is not deemed sufficient,
we do not depend upon that alone. That Captain
Gray discovered the Columbia river before any
British subject had seen it, is conceded even by
England herself and that Mr.. Jefferson 6tst had the
river explored by Lewis and Clarke, in 1885, and
shortly afterwards published their dongs. and thus
publicly proclaimed TO the world our intention to
occupy and settle that country, are matters of his
tory a. well known TO the British government as our
, own. We subsequently, In 1903, 1910, and 1911,
| \ n get m