The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-13
THE DAILY UNION


sds.nssrssie. pvsssni 10 As naiiea ik< decision ga
board of srbssoys xspinx 10 Bidn he sAois control
ofs Pacific eos,s Ms t,irs eoDsres 0tih China and
The ioos foreign iraas bsih srps't and '"Ps'i " osT
western posssssioms!" -
...- From the ssn.
"The first emotion Of those who ars Informed
that offer 10 settle the Oregon question by srba-
tration has been rejected and that THIS door Of es
cape from tho infinite nuisance OF war 70 eiossd Will
be, in most cases, surprise and regret
"Buta closer examination OF the question viii per-
haps lead to a different judgment What IL the
suect matter which il IL proposed 70 leave 70 arbi-
| trstionl The Oregon territory extending IL, nom
ago to $40 40 10 divided by the Colombss rivsr emp
tying into the Pacific between ths parallels Of Is
and 47o. To tho country lying south OF this, Eng
| land has never alleged any serious claim. Between
four aud Eve degrees Of the disputed ,ertory there
fore, may be considered as confessediy ours- But
these are worthless for commercial purposes. the
coast 10 an iron rock-bound shore, without siagse
port In retaining these degrees, therefore, ws have
no single place OF maritime lngress or egrsss. The
real con royssy lates TO the seven degrees remain
ing south Of 54o 40. ofthis coonuy, England and
the United States each claim the whole It's inter.
nal advantages are involved 10 great doubt but IL Is
admitted To be admirably adapted TO commercial OBJ
jects The shore 10 broken one, sbounding la
Islands, inlsts, and ports.
I'VE have repeatedly proposed 70 divide the
a
for thirty yeus, has steadily refused. Any
thing short of this line depnvss US OF every
port on the Paeife--gtyes US territory without a
single hsrbor, port, or ro~lstsad, and yet IL 10
this absolute reflsa Of pous that Ensland calls
e6u, when she suggests 10 US The Columbia
riyer as the dividing line. Equally Unfair IL her last
proposed division by the Columbia. with the add
ton Of headand completelyeu OF from the rest OF
our possessions, and Of certain free ports. What
avails headland separated from our own territory
by hundred miles Of British 0reeoni or what
use are ports free" only .. ,se pleasure Of Great
Britain 49,
ain word, we have proposed TO divids the ooun-
try by line, giving to each power moetieA Of its
surface nearly equal and giving 10 Gres Britain al
most all the ports. Great British has never made
any proposition which would give US a single avail.
able port. t.....F
sis this reasonablei Is it justl Is il friendly
The Oregon question to-day Is Of liule moment-holi
century hence, The enterprising population en-
poyed in the commerce of the Pacific will look back
with amazement at the men who, In lei5, pronoun.
ced the controversy one OF no consequence, and in
s discussion utterly overlooked the question Of the
haTbOrs of the country.
"Whal now is the proposition TO arbitratei What
is to he left to arbitraonl The matter and the only
matter, To be left to the proposed board is uhsihST
the United Sisits shall haze any ports ths Pacific
Oeean--noi hou many, but tohsthu any. Draw the
line where you will, Great Britain must be left with
beautiful and abundant harbors. Draw IL half a de-
gree below forty-nne, and the United States left
without one.
"ls this question to be left to arbitration AN
arbtration which, 90 1t may, will 20 in favor OF
England, and which may result most adversely TO
the United Statesl TIE offer such arbitration,
after whole generation spent in a steady refusal OF
our reasonable offers, is surely lite in accordance
Wild what Mr.. Pakenham calls friendly intention
or a holy purpose
From the n. Y. Globe
THE croakers now are hard At work to croak the
government into some disgraceful and ill-sdyised
settlement Of the Oregon question. They oroak
eternslly Of war, war, war. The folly Of all this is
inioerable. We shall not have war. IL is out OF
the question. Our rights are too clear, and public
opinion in both nations is too decidedly opposed TO
war, unless matter Of necsssty, 20 warrant the be-
lief that 1t will occur Great Britain cannot afford
10 90 to war, FIRST in the wrong and then with a
young and vigorous nation, 'doubly armed Ii
will not be; but sooner than surrender iota OF
national honor at the feet Of the proud lion, let il
come, dreadful may be all its horrors. The
great cause of truth and human liberty cannot ever
be made to bow at the feet Of British power and
PRIDE representing 1t does, the great principle OF
kingly and aristoratcal government in Europe.
"The President has secured immortal honor by
his rejection of the proposal TO erbitnte. Arbiuate
with Great Britain! how preposerous.
Maps and charts, and testimony and influences
would be brought to bear upon such board tina,
we have never dreamed Of. Who would be Sc
lectedl Civilians from the United States and from
Great Britain, and an umps~ fssnk snofhsr land.
Would he be proof against British influence, What
kingy power Of Europe could do us justicei The
President did right to refuse to submit the territory
of Oregon to such a dangerous and uncertain tri-
bunal."
From them. Y. Morning Telegraph.
awe do not conceive that this incident changes
in any great degree the general state Of the question
| 1t is but renewal of the proposition made by Mr.
Pakenham to Mr.. Calhoun year ago, and then
| declined by him. And we are free to express the
opinion that Mr.. Buchanan and Mr.. Calhoun, con-
curing thus in opinion upon the question at arb
tration hare refused for good and sufficient reasons
And although these reasons do not fully appear al
| yet, still we can imagine what they are. Arbtra
| ton between individuals is sometimes convenien
enough, because the courts of justice stand ready Il
enforce the award, provided il is good one, ant
conformabe to the tenor Of the submission; but WHIT
in the case of arbitration between governments j,
to enforce the award Who is TO determine wheth-
err the award is just and equitable in itselA Who ID
To try the question whether the arbtrato8 were par.
tia and corrupt or not
ain regard to all these points, nation which sub
mrs its rights to arbitration is totally without rem
edy. And in such case, If the award exceed tn
authority granted by the submission, or If there b.
reason to see that the arbitrator is under corrup
influences, and has given manifestly corrupt o
unjust award, then is the agrieved nation to submit
to this injus,icel 1t may DO easy to say that It il
better to submit to injustice than to continue con
troversy But we perfectly well know, it is not il
human nature to do so. Nay, we 60 further, ant
say, that neither men nor nations under any mo
raj obligation to submit voluntarily to an act of in
justice And we may be perfectly sure, in tn
United States with it's shifting tide uf parties sbbn,
and flowing from one side to the other, that If tn
majority Of to-day, submits public question to ar
bitration, which arbitration results in corrupt