The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-14
THE ARBITRATION QUESTION.


toaT.--h was nsper reriptd.-h not susceptible
OTrsvipal IN l5l4-U rSpiVed Il t0as merged in N
London convention Of 1871, and the hosiSs month,
notice l0iA put an end 10 a.-.M. Pakenhams pro
pO,al TO arbitration, Sc, &C.
No. III.
These essays have conceded that Great Britain
acquired rights in Oregon, under the convention o
Nootka They have maintained that she acquired
them no where else; and the high authority Of the
British commissioners has been cited in support o.
this position II il be well taken, IL establishes such
a state OF mutual dependence between those right,
and the convention which conferred them. that
neither could survive the other; bring either TO an
end, and both are gone.
In the previous number, II was maintained, thai
the rights Of Great Britain in Oregon did not reach
south wsrd of the 49th parallel, Of which proofs
giyen-belieyed never TO have been oVerthrown, OF
even met. BE this as it may, it now becomes mate.
ria to look into the nature Of the right conferred
Was il sovereignty II was not Was It eminent
domain Il was not. Was It a present or a rever.
sionary title Il was neither. To claims Of this
dignity and magnitude, Great Britain has made no
pretensions-she makes none now-she limited her
claim TO a usufruct-a joint usufruct-under q
Joint occupancy"-with Spain formerly, and now
with US. To what joint uses were the parties re-
stricied The third article Of the Nootka conyen.
iron informs us, IN limiting them to navigating OF
carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific ocean" &c
"or in landing the coasts OF those seos fer the
purpose Of carrying on their commerce with the
natives Of the country, or Of making settlements
there" for like purposes The convention conferred
no rights greater, nor other than these-none be-
yond them, and none whatever that were exclusive.
Every word Of this is British doctrine, and pro-
damned as SUCH IN public negotiation with this
government in 1926. Messrs. Husk isson and Ad-
1ington explicitly admitted, that Great Bualn's
claim, mot In respect TO any part but TO the whole
IS limited TO right Of JOINT occupancy" &c, "lsau-
mg the rghl Of exclusive dominion in abeyance" And
afterwards, pointing TO the very source Of authority
from which this limited right had been derived,
they say "By that convention (of Noolka) it was
agreed that all parts Of the northwestern coasts of
America not already occupied at that time by eth
er Of the contracting parties, should thenceforward
be equally open TO the subjects Of both, and the
0ptrrigniy remaining in abeyanes" They then sum
up The whole with at once avowal and an ac-
Acknowledgement, that "he rights Of Great Britain
are fired and defined BY the convention Of .NoOtka,"
&c.
Nothing would seem palmer than this that if her
rights" were "FixEp" by that convention, the
clause could not change them while il lasted To
change "rightn fixed by treaty, varies the terms;
and when party does that without the others con-
SENT the treaty is broken and that other is absoved
from its obligations. Were this otherwise, the ma
ton in deheto would not only work out its own adj
vantage through its own wrong, but stand in mfori
cam, than the nation which remained in good faith
both in regard TO what il submitted to, and what il
RETAINED from. This leads to the remark that there
are two modes in which public treaties and conven-
tons may be broken and put an end TO; the one by
breaches Of material provisions, the other by open
VAR and this turns us back again into the chapter
OF events, TO how, and whether, the Nootka
yention has endured and survived these tests. Now
one Of these ordcas would seem quite effective Of
results as the other, though it has somehow es-
capped the whole stress Of the debate in Congress;
and as il is worth looking into, and was first in or
der Of time, It has claims 10 be first in the order of
precedence II involves this proposition
/. The NooTKA CONVENTION WAS BROKEN AND
PUT AN END TO BY GREAT BRITAIN PssoR TO THE
WAR OF 1876.
The year 1880 had scarcely closed upon the
Nootka convention before Great Britain commenced
Il series Of explorations and discoveries within the
very limits which, she says, was embraced by its
terms; and if so, should have been exempt from her
sggressions. She signalized the year 1892, by ex-
ploits OF this nature in the Oregon which transcend
ed all former bounds, and broke through all stipu-
aions. Vancouver, "a British oficer,) not con-
tent with circumnavigatlng and making proprietary
survey Of Quadra and Vancouver's island, actually
despatched Lieutenant Broughton, Of the British
navy, to the Columbia river, with Grays chart, and
with orders to enter it and sail up it, and TO TAKE
POSSESSION THEREOF, AND OF THE VALLEY OF THE
COLUMBIA, IN THE NAME OF THE BRIrIsH KING AND
M DID so But did the British government coun-
tenance the act Countenance it Yes; and does
to this day; and now refers to it adding
strength and weight to her claims In Mr.. PAX
enham's note to Mr.. Calhoun of the 18th Septem-
Der, 1874, he says
"The operations of Vancouver, in entering, sur
veying, and exploring to a considerable distance in
ward, the river Columbia, would, as a necessary
consequence, supersede the discovery of Captain
Gray-To SAY NOTHING OF THE ACT OF TAKING pos
SESSION, IN THE NAME OF SOVEREIGN, WHICH
CEREMONY WAS DULY PERFORMED AND AUTHENTI-
cALLr RECORDED DIT CAPT. VANCOUVER"
And afterwards, in his note TO Mr.. Buchanan Of
the Doth of July, ls45, in speaking of Vancouver's
having circumnavigated the island which bears his
name, 'after an accurate survey Of the coasts and
nlets on both Sides" he adds:
"And here we have, as far as relates to Van
couvers island, complete a case Of discovery, ex-
ploration, and settlement, well be presented,
giping 10 Great Britain, in any arrangement that
may be made with regard to the territory in dis
pute, TUE STRONGEST POSSIBLE CLAIM TO THE Ex-
elusive POSSESSION OF THAT ISLAND" and then he
refers to the discovery made by Sir Alexander
Mackenzie in the same year, Q792,) or the head
waters Of Frazers river, &c.
None will dispute but that these were voluntary
and undssuise acts of sovereignty. They plainly
aimed at exclusive ownership, and as necessary cor
rollares, exclusive use, erciusiue occupancy, and
srciusire possession. Whence came the authority
TO do these thingsl Not from the convention;
for that forbds it, and if from elsewhere, it was re-
pugnant to its terms. Great Britain tells us that
her rights were both "6red and defined" by that
convention; and it "defned" them to be "timifed
to right Of joint occupancy" As to the "sover-
elgnty," she disclaimed not only the right to exer-
else IT, but the very having oft. She persisted that
the convention put it "in abeyanos." She not only
dsclsimed any Exclusive dominion" over it, but
pronounced the very "mcHr OF EXCLUSIVE poMIN-
ION NJ ApEyAScE " And yet in the face Of the con
vention and Of these deliberate disavowas, she ex
ults in and ratfes the act Of her subject in taking
possession Of fun moiety Of the territory in the
name OF the British king.
1t being clear, them that the acts done that
they were explicitly svowed-that they were in
breach ofspein's treaty rights-nothing remains but
for the law Of nations TO adudge the consequences
between the contracting parties.
II was at one time doubted II the breach Of one
article Of a treaty was breach Of the whole, and
absolvcd the parties; but this is the settled result
now, unless the aggrieved nation chooses otherwise,
and makes known that claim. The right to do so
constitutes the exception, and not the rule Vattei
has many passages to the purpose worthy Of quo
huon; but few Of them must suffice here He
says;
Everything comprehended in the same treaty
has the force and nature Of reciprocal promises, at