New-York daily tribune., 1846-01-16


reached beyond the Rocky mountains; and, second
~. that the same remark applies TO this title which
has lust been made upon the title obtained from
Spain; il is covered by the Nooka convention.
France ceded Louisiana 10 Spain in 1892 and It was
as the owner not only of California but OF Lousl'
ana tha, Spain signed a convention in 1890. which
admitted the British TO q right OF joint occupancy OF
Oregon. Spain ceded Louisiana back to France in
1902 but not in such perfect condition as 1t was
when she recovered 1t. She returned 1t burdened
with the treaty supuatlons which she had made
while it was in her hands. And it was with this in
cumbrance upon it that the ned States purchased
Louisiana in the following year.
Having considered two branches of the argument
in favor ofour pretension 10 the whole of Oregon
namely, the rights obtained by purchase from SPAN
and France-we now come 10 the third and only re-
naming one which is founded the proceedings
and discoveries Of our own citizens. And here one
remark is necessary respecting the effect OF thus ac-
cumualing several distinct titles in the hands oil one
claimant. Some maintain that these independent
claims, being inconsistent one with another. %hen
united destroy each other, and leave the claimant
who has brought them together without any hrm
title. Others say that they mutually confirm ana
strengthen each other and III case OF division OF he
land entitle the party owing them to as many distinct
shares as possesses caims that Is that the Uni
ted States in their own right and in that OF France
and of Spain ought TO have threeourihs OF the ter
ritory while Great Britain resting only on It's own
! prc,ensons can demand but onefourth. Neither
position is correct The United States, by purchas-
ing the French and Spanish titles gain an advant-
age thou is only of negative character by
essening the number Of competitors the agency OF
Frenchmen or Spanards in discovering or set
/ Ting Oregon, or acquiring possessions border
! ing upon it, cannot be adduced TO weaken
our claim. though it may be urged against the pre-
tensions of the English. On the other hand, this
union Of claims does directly strengthen our title
! for if either of them assumed to be well founded,
our own proper claim disappears entirely; and con-
/ verscly if the claim in our own right be good the
French and Spanish titles are of no worth. We can
not pile these pretensons one upon another; their
force is not cumulative but distinctive. Ii SPAN
! actually surveyed the coast of Oregon and discev-
cred the mouth OF the Columbia in l775, then Cap
/ tain GRAY in 1892 and Lewis and Clarke in 1905.
were only intruders and on the other hand it the
discoveries of Gray, Lewis and Clarke make out
perfect right if their explorations in fact can be
called discoveries then Oregon was vacant and un-
appropria,ed-a mere terra incogntta, open to the
first comer- 1wn to 1892 and the antecedent
claims of Fra,ce and Spain are mere nonentilles-
! We mav il is true. elect the strongest out OF the
three claims. and rest the whole OF our title upon
that reserving the other two TO be urged against the
English and thereby may weaken or break down
their claim though without demonstrating our own.
And this has been the course pursued by the most
sagacious of the American statesmen-not by all OF
them-in the several negotiations upon the subject
They have put in the front the discovery by Gray IN
1892 the exploration by Lewis and Clarke 10 eo5,
and the establishment Astoria in 5ll; and by so
doing they have admitted that the French and Span
ish titles invalid or doubtful This admission,
coupled with the force of the Nootka Convention on
which we have already commented, leaves no doubt
that the American claim far it rests on the pur
chase Of Louisiana from France. or on the Florida
Treaty with Spain, is imperfect. And this, the read
er should observe, is the only point we are now
seeking TO establish. We do not attempt 10 discuss
the English claim nor even pr0ve the opinion al
Jr. fhatt tha A ia
ter of the two We would show only that this title
at the best is imperfect that it does not empower US
peremp;oriy to demand the whole of Oregon and
the assertion that it is clear and unquesonabe Is
an empty vaunt mere rhetorical flourish. In or
der make out our point. it only remains 10 exam
inc the rights created by the American discoverers
and explorers.
Captain Cook explored the coast of Oregon, though
imperfecty in l77s Meares, a lieutenant In the
English navy, formed n trading establishment ut
Nootka Sound, in latitude 49,, in l7e2, and exam
ined the coast for considerable distance quite
rowly in vain attempt to find the great river; an
couver surveyed the whole coast very accurately In
the years 1924, considerable portion OF the sur
being completed before Gray entered the Columbia
II is now admitted on all hands, that Captain Gray
in Nav 1892 was the first to enter the mouth Of the
river--Heceta the mouth in l775, and entered II
as the opening o.! u river on map-that tray salied
twelve miles up the stream, and gave II 10 the name
Of his ship which it has ever since retained On IN
formation received from Hltn VANCOUVER
aelv sent his lieutenant up the river who explored
it for nearly hundred miles farther Now the
whole onestion is, whether this discovery OF the
mouth of the Columbia gives good title to the
whole region drained by it, in spite OF the antece-
dent explorations of The whole coast OF that region
We must confess strong doubt whether II does
The mouth of river is but one point on coast,
though n pretty important point, especially II the
river be large but the previous accurate determnn-
lion of dozen other points on the coast may De OIL
at least equal importance Before Gray entered ihe
Columbia, the whole Pacific shore from the Spanish
settlements to point far beyond the present North
ern limit of Oregon was, 20 speak. tam'iadriy
knosrn both TO Spanish and English nav gators
There was even q carrent report, probably derived
from Hecetas voyage. that great river opened 10
/ the sea in that vicinity. and Meares had gone IN
search of il but the breakers the dangerous bar
! Mt its mouth made him think that the coast was con-
tinuous, and he could not find it. Gray was more
/ lucky he found the opening, and got IN over the
bar though he had hard work TO get out again Un'
der these circumstances we can hardly say that ne
made perfectly independent and peculiar dscov-
/ erv which was worth more than all that his prede.
/ cessors had accomplished.
Nor is the principle itself by any means esab-
lished in international law, that The discovery OF
river takes rank a previous discoveries on the
seacoast. Historical precedents are rather against
il. Hudson in the service of the Dutch. discover:
! ed the river which bears his name, In 1909, and
sailed far up the stream; but the claim of his EN-
pioyers was not allowed 10 mold aSainsl Inc lltle
! created for the English by Cabot who explored the
whole seacoast nearly a century before The Dutch
dominion was forcbly put down, and New Am
sterdam changed into New-York. Again,
! France discovered the mouth of the Mississippi
/ and her subjects the first to sail down the
whole length of that mighty stream. But she made
good her title only a small tract on the east side
OF the river; while the English, by the right of con-
tiguity alone carried back their settlements upon
the whole remaining portion OF the lett bank. lie
people of the United States surely the last per
, sons who ought 10 complain that the matter was
thus adjusted Park explored the Niger, and Lam
der discovered its mouth; but England has not yet
laid claim TO Timbuctoo. In fine, we cannot recoi-
lect single instance in which the discovery of
river was held TO be solid basis of title to
/ territory than the discovery of its coast. The
precedents are all the other way
The expedition of Lewis and Clarke Is OF no sub
stan,ive importance in creating title to Oregon 1t
may assist or confirm antecedent pretenslons found
ed on discovery or settlement, because indicated