Rutland herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1823-1847, 1846-03-12

States TO The Oregon Territory. The
time allotted me IS insufficient nj the
same time 10 allow me 10 present some
other views ia connection with this
controversy btween the two govern
mcnts rs ! desire 10 do. Moreover, the
Question q title has bccu very fullydIs-
cussed both hero and elsewhere The
result of the best and most impartial
examination ] have been able 10 give
Ia the subject, upon my own nina is,
that both Governments have certain
rights and claims there, not perhaps
very clearly defined that neither gov
ernment has clear or perfect title 10
the whole of the Oregon Territory
tina, neither can rIghliully aSseEIa aAt,
US own exclusive jurisdiction over the
whole of it, consistently with the rights
aud claims Of the other The qucs-
ton Of utlc III controversy Is peculiar
J. &. o. 'hm character, which renders ii
omucui'y fit and proper SUBJECT loi
negotiation and compromise. However
we may affect 10 regard our title TO
the whole Of Oregon us clear and PER
trctIngland Is enthusiastically con-
vncod that she has the better title Ia It
part Of that rri'urV. Not unlike all
tariIc, 10 % controversy. we very read
l'y, 4 casilyand naturally satisfy our
selves that we are IN the night, that the
opposing party is in the wrong. The
CONTROVERSY IN tins instance. as 10 the
QUESTION of r,uLt ms 10 thc. uucstlou of
tnic. lc, rs bear m mind. is not among
oI.l>,ls... !, with another purty.
acknowledgements Inch claims
t,,c agau,., n, to another 1arl Of this
territory. Tins controversy has cxl.-
ted for more than twenty-five years.
ItIsa question of conflicting ttlc be
tween two Governments. each urging
and Insisting that II has the stronger
and better claim. The arguments
which hay. been addressed ly each
/ Gny,rupcu, to the their
Diplomatic corrosuouI.ncc however.
ingenious and abe they may be-. are
nevertheless rather the ingenious and
able ARGUMENTS of counsel for a client.
than Of the iudgc pronounclng an i'm
partial decision uuon the merits of the
caec. These conflicting claims have
been the subject of discussion. of argu-
mcnt. of negotiation, of mutual PROPOSE
tons Of COMPROMISE and settlement at
different periods and under different
administrations rcprcscnlng,h the views
and policy of the two leading diverse
political parties IN the country, during
tins whole period fl time. Both GOV
c-mmcn,s have occupied the disputed
territory, in the mean time, too certain
extent, and for certain purposes rs
they now occupy it by virtue OF con
ycuuoua, agreement.
Iur direct question which IS now
pre- cntcd to u, and which undertake
10 say IS prcma,urey and lncons'r'y
upon the consideration OF the poputa
branch of the Legislative Dcpa!lmcn
/, whothcgC ongrcs, Shall dlrcctthai nm
conditional notice Shall louhWlthbc CIV
cu lorthc termination clthc convention
Of lN2. and whether rs a ucCcs sarN
rr.ultlug c6n,cqucucc Of such notice
after the amooa,lnn of tie treaty. W,
shall assert am exclusive claim To th
- whole Of the OREGON territory. and cx
S tend oycrthc whole of 1t our own cX
elusive sovereignty, or whether W
- .i,.ll lravc the controversy stll opcr
I .,tuow IS. for further ncgouation am
Be- couuuroml,c. Whether, IN short, il
\ fine uopular language Of the advocate