Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1846-04-04

Of this. He speaks Of the injury to tho
vessels; but in the whole communication
there is not one word that upon the soil
0 the country Great Britain had any
claim. He does not speak Of the loss Of
lands. No, sir. He does not speak of
the destruction of houses; but he COM
plains OF The capture OF two ships and
their cargoes. Well, Spain took great
pains to clear up this matter. She be-
haved in liberal and noble way and she
addressed memorial to the courts Of
Europe in justification Of her conduct, in
which she holds this language:
"The high and mcnaclng tone and
manner in which the answer Of the Brit
'ish minister was couched, at time when
mo certain information Of the particulars
'had arrived, made the Spanish Cabinet
'en;ertain some suspicious that 1t was
made not so much for the purpose ofthe
dispute in question, as a pretext to break
entirely with our Court; for which reason
1T was thought necessary to take some
'precaution relative to the subject"
Well, sir, when affidavits came to be
made in London to bring this claim prop
.erly before Parliament, the word Glands"
is, for the first time,- introduced. The
Spanish Governor took great pains; it
obtained certificates of TWO American
captains who were there at the time,
not only giving the details of all the
Transactions, but TO them is propounded
the question, whether any buildings or
lands were owned by Captain Meares,
who was the complainant. Now, what
did they say? Here is what they say;
lntefim, we observe you wish TO be &C.
'quainted what house or establishment
'Mr. Meares had at the time the Span
'iards arrived there. We answer in a
word, none" They had no land, nor no
title TO the soil. And yet you find, when
the Nootka Sound treaty came to be made
made, no doubt, under the menace of
British feet-that the word Glands" is
introduced But, taking that treaty.
the whole and entire treaty together-it
gives nothing. as | have said before, 10
fsi,U Drittsn uoyernnent out what ner
minister, in 1927, termed QUALIFIED
rights" Well now, sir, here is view
that has struck my mind, independent of
the argument which is put forward by the
Secretary of State, ''lhat this treaty was
entirely abrogated by the war which en-.
sued between Spain and Great Britain"
And it is this: that any grant from any
Power TO another, of qualified right Of
that kind, must be taken TO continue only
SO long as that qualified right can be
fairly exercised in reference to the pro-
gress and sttlement Of the country.
Spain never could have intended, and
never did intend, to give to Great Britain,
by that treaty, the right, if she should
hereafter settle and cultivate that coun-
try, to any portion Of its sovereignty.
1t was Alright 10 trade on an uncivilzed
coast-a right for protection for her
ships in storms--a right onl " which could
6e exercised without injury to Spain,
while Spain had not yet settled upon the
territory, but which could not be con-
sidered to extend beyond the period when
Spain, or any other Power to whom she
should transfer her sovereignty, should
settle and cultivate that soil. So read
that treaty, sir. 1t is temporary from
The very nature Of things, and must have
been intended TO be ended when the state
Of the country had become entirely
changed from what it was when the
treaty was made. Now, upon that treaty
of Nootka Sound, Great Britain plants
herself, not claiming, as said before,
the sovereignty to one foot of the soil,
but merely the right jointly 10 occupy 1t
for the purpose OF trade.
Mr.. Chairman, ia 1918, when the con-
venton of that day was made, joint &C.
cupancy suited both the high contracting
In 1918, no citizen of the Uni
ted States, except possibly those connec-
ted with the fur trade at Astoria, had be-
come an inhabitant Of that territory.
Great Britain and the United States look.
ed TO its use merely as place for carry
ing on the fur trade, and possibly as a
place for watering their ships engaged
in the whale fishery in the Pacific.
Joint occupancy, then, was all that the
United States wanted; joint occupancy
was then, and is now, all that Great
Britain wants. In 1897, things remained
n the same condition; and that which
vas but temporary, by its own Limitation,
vas made TO continue during the pleas
Ire OF both parties. But what does it
,ear on its face? Why, it bears on its
ace the opinion Of both the high con-
racting parties, that period would
come when this joint occupancy would
10 longer be advisable 1t reserves the
light for either party to terminate this
ONT occupancy upon twelve months no
ice. They looked then, as they did in
8l8, when they made this convention
emporarily, they looked to the fact that