The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-18
THE UNION.
City or WAS HINGT o
ARBITRATION QUESTION.

/ recommend our readers earnestly TO read u. Whe
that is done, be will recommend himself III
touches the popular topic Of the day in msnne
which shows that his "right hand has not lost il
cunning" and that the spirit Of his former produe
lions still brealhes 10 the one before Us:
THE ARBITRATION Of THE OREGON CoNTRo-
VERsY UPON THE BASIS OF THE BRITISH
PRoPosALs-CoSslDERED.- L.
To the Editor Of the Union:
Within brief month past, two proposals hav,
been made by the British envoy, 10 settle the 0regot
controversy by arbitration; both Of these proposal,
have been promptly but eourteousy declined by thi,
government; the whole matter has been laid befor.
Congress and the country; and the common mind Of
the nation Is engaged in passing judgment both upon
the merits Of the offers which have been made, and
upon the wisdom Of declining them.
BE that Judgment what Il may, We must all con.
eede that il was skilful stroke Of policy in Mr..
Pakenham TO hays made these proposals at this Zine.
The Oregon controversy had reached somewhat OF A
crisis. The American proposition had been rejected
with great decision and with but liuIe ceremony;
and had afterwards, and with great forrnaity been
Withdrawn, and all negotiation was broken of. The
two nations had, indeed, mutually professed 70 each
other their sincere desires for the continuance of
peace, and all minds still cherished hopes Of an am.
cable adjustment, but none could see in the existing
siGitts Of things, the means or the terms through
winch u cOuiu DC accomplished. Proposals the n
made at such a time, which looked 10 peace, and
promised peace, could hardly fail in the first in
stance 10 make impressions favorable to the nation
making them, and, at the same time devoving up.
on the nation TO whom they were made Tesponsibil-
tiles both Of delicaey and ofmomenL
We'll, the proposals being made, all the respon-
sibilties they devolved on us have been fairly and
boldly met, and the proposals themselves most ex-
plicity declined II possible nay probable, that
Mr.. Pakenham was convinced when he made them
that such must be the fate that awaited them Thai
he may have expected that their tender and refusal
would have the effect Of drawing off a portion OF
support from the American administration, OF
raising up and rallying All opposition, and
giving yigor, point, and consequence TO It's as
sauls, may we'll be imputed to him, without
impugning his conduct at ALL for he is his
country's envoy, and, in q national controversy ha
right to oil fair and open means 10 put her ma
uonal adversary in the wrong. To what extent
theae expectations may have succeeded cannot at
this time, be known-that they have been to some
extent successful is not to be disputed. Men, from
whom better things were expected, have been heard
to say that these proposals. show Great Brilain's
from whom sounder opinions were
hoped, have said that they show her confidence in
the justice Of her claims. Others, who know but
little, and think upon the surface are saying eve
ought not to have declined them" Others, who
would have peace upon any terms, say out boldly
that she has put in the wrong; while many Of the
wing journals are every where arousing and concen-
trang their forces in demanding settlement Of the
Oregon controversy upon the basis of the British
When, indeed, we look at the recent
wing vote in the House upon the question Of "no-
tice" and Immediately following disclosure of the
tender and refusal OF the British propesels-when
we glance at Mr. Crittendens proposition bending in
the Senate chamber in favor Of "notice !" and lis
ten TO the reasonings Of Mr.. Clayton in its sup.
port, we much doubt whether this movement will
meet with entire success. One thing, however,
seems reasonably sure, and that is that whatever
may be the present effect upon public opinion OF
Ibis enms---..., cahnof pe iasias. }e,, a,,y
sis shall once have laid bare the real mertsMsH
that they inroire and all that they ercyfsltt NAV
well be doubted, if any man among us will either
assert or admit that they were meet for acceptance
by the American government.
Let the result of Mr.. PakenhamS movement
however, be what 1t may il is evident that he has
achieved it oil without the semblance of a risk Of
any of the claims of his own government III
could be supposed that Mr. Pakenham expected US
to accede to an arbitration at ALL after it had been so
distinctly declined by Mr.. Calhoun but n year ago,
il must have been certainly known to him that il
could not be accepted upon the terms upon which
he now offered it, to say nothing Of Great Britain's
risking anything in an arbitrament, which in the
American view OF the question, could involve moth
ing really her own.
Generally speaking, an arbitrament would be re-
garded as wise substitute for force, should there
happen to be no other. Hence offers to arbrate
look WE'LL for they hold out promises of just settle
ment upon the terms Of peace. The American mind
readily favors such profers, for that mode of ad-
justing individual rights is common, and has proved
satisfactory in most Of the States. But we must
take notice that private and national arbitramens are
very different things In the former the arbrators
under the guidance and control of the courts of
justice, whose duty it is TO take care that their
awards fairly made, and to enforce such as are,
and to annu such as are not But when the arbi-
irium shall once have been pronounced upon refer
ence which nations have made be the bias, the err
ror, the wrong, and injury ever so manifest, and
what they may, where is reparation to be had' As
to appeal, there is none-there can be none but TO
the sword and this is war, and war it may be with
too nations, instead Of one, for to impute wilful
wrong to the arbitratng nation must touch its honor
and the chances would be that il would take afront
and make war. Affiliations, then, however peace
full their tendencies in the main, are not without
their hazards, and might not only bring but hasten
war
1t is said that the nation which offers TO arbitrate
gives the strongest proof of its confidence in the JUS
tce of its claims. Not always not oftenest. It
might be proof fthe very contrary. A nation ma
king claim to Q thing, of which the title was in
another, might well submit it to arbitration for if it
gained nothing, it could not lose, as nothing was
risked. Any dgrarian would gladly arbitrate with
any farmer in the country the question Of what
would be ian equitable partition" Of his farm be-
tween them, which was the only question which
Mr. Pakenham would consent TO submit, under his
first proposal to Mr. Buchanan. What is to be
sad Them Would such a proposal by an agrarian
to arbirate a line of partition between himself and
the rightful owner Of property to which he had
never had the shadow OF title, be ndiudged proof
of his confidence in that titlei Great Britain would
gladly arbitrate with us the claim she put forth
to free navigation Of the Mississippi; but would
her offer to do so be any proof Of her confidence in
ns justice' In controversy between weak and
strong nation, where the former was without the
power to maintain her rights by arms, an offer by
her to erbitrate might be such proof; but in gen
eral such an offer would seem to prove little more
than that the nation making it had confidence in OBJ
tanning in that way fully as much as she was enti-
tied to, and oil she likely to get without hazard
in any other. ...
On the other hand il is said that nation declining
an offer to arbitrate its claims, gives proof Of its
want Of confidence in their justice. fit had only
been said that it thereby gave proof of its want Of
confidence in having justice done to its claims in
the arbitrument, il would have been higher the
truth, and quite to the purpose. Surely there are
some things which men may not arbitrate, and yet