The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-30

uabjeehng il again to argument The able lette
| hold IN my hand from the pen Of the Secretary
Of State, (Mr. Buchanan,) in reply to the positions
assumed by Mr.. Pakenham, the British plenpoten
tiary here, il conclusive and unanswerable and, IN
| my humble judgment, Is characterized by as muei
ability as any or the kind that has ever emanatec
from that department.
4 The appropriate issues arising out of the meas
ures submitted the subject Of occupying Oregon
are, it seems 70 me, these, possession, the right tc
possession, and f these are In favor) then the
best means OF ayang ourselves OF the full enjoy.
meni OF these rights as against mere squatters, &c
To determine these questions, it might be we'll to
look back at some incidents in the history of the
two nations touching these issues, that We may be
able 10 begin night in the argument. The Secretary
Of State Mr.. Bachansnl shows, ID his argument
that at tbs ums Of the declaration of war by this
nation against Great Britain, we had the full and
exclusive Possession Of Oregon an against Rng.
land, thai, some time after the wst Mad cbm.
meneed, Great Britain, through her navy, forciby
seized the points occupied by our citizens in Ore.
gon, and that the possession was not restored again
to this government until some three or FOUR years
after The treaty OF Client, which was in December,
1914, the first article Of which reads thus: THAT
all territory, places, and possessions, whatsoever
taken by either party from the other during the
war, or which may be taken after the signing OF
this treaty, excepting only the islands afterwards
named IN the Bay Of Fundy, shall be restored with
out delay"
The surrender or restoration Of Oregon under this
clause Of the treaty Of Client was formally made UNI
der order that proceeded from the Prince Regent
Of England, and dlreeted BY Earl Bathurst to the
partners or agents Of the Northwest Company
The following is the report Of the surrender by the
proper officers:
ain obedience to the command of his royal high
ness the Princa Regent 10 despatch from the right
honorable the Earl Bathurst addressed to the part
ners or agents Of the Northwest Company, bearing
date the 9th ofJanuary, 1878 and in obedience TO
subsequent order dated the 18th Of July, 1918,
from William II. Sheriff, esq, captain Of his Ma
iesty's ship Andromache, we, the undersigned. do
in conformity to the first article Of the treaty Of
Client, restore TO tho government Of the United
States, through its agent, j. B. Provost, esq, the
settlement Of Fort George on the Columbia river.
"Giyen under our hands, &C., the sixth day Of
October, 1918.
"Cspt. of his Majesty's ship Blossom.
81. KEITH,
"Of the Northwest Company"
al do hereby acknowledge to have received this
day, In behalf Of the government Of the United
States, the possession OF the settlement designated
above in conformity to the first article Of the treaty
of Client. "
"Giyen under my hand, In triplicate, at Fort
George, Columbia river, the 9th day Of October
....- a. B. PROVOST"
II is proper here to remark, that in Earl Bath
urst's despatch, and in Lord Castlereagh,s in
struction to the British minister at Washington
reservation is made that the surrender Of pos
session should not be deemed admission of the
absolute and exclusive right Of dominion claimed
by the United States; but at the same time In ex-
PLANTATION to Mr.. Rush, as stated in public de-
spatch, Lord Castlereaah admitted, in the most
ample extent, our right TO be reinstated in the pos
session, and to be the party in possession while
treating of the title" .....-- ..
Now it will be perceived by the foregoing, that
the United States, through her agent Mr.. Provost,
had been restored to her original possession Of the
territory, by the British government, in October,
lSl6 and that AFTER that restoration Of possession,
Lord Castlcreagh, in some explanation to Mr.
Rush, had admitted the justice Of the restoration,
and that this government was rightfslly in pos!
session of the country whilst the two nations were
treating Of the title Our possession, then, up to
the date Of the convention, which is falsely called
the treaty Of joint occupancy, dated about two
weeks after the surrender of the territory aore-
said, was full and perfect, Now, by the terms Of
that treaty, did we dispossess ourselves or in any
way weaken our right to possession To deter
mine this question, will give you the articles Of
that convention which are material to the argu-
ment, in order that my course may be directed by
the facts in this controversy. They read as fol-
lows:
ARTICLES OF CONVENTION.
BY the third article ofthe convention of 1918,
at is agreed that any country that may be claimed
by either party on the northwest coast of Amer
lea, westward of the Stony mountains, shall, to-
gether with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and
the navigation Of all rivers within the same, be free
and open for the term of ten years from the date of
the signature of the present convention, to the
sells, citizens and subjects of the two powers it be-
ing well understood that this agreement is not to be
construed to the prejudice ofany claim which either
of the two high contracting parties may have to
any part Of the said country" &c.
By the joint article of 1897 at is agreed that
the provisions the first article of the convention of
1918, above recited shall be, and they hereby,
same manner if all the provisions of the said ar
tcle were herein specifically rected."
BY the second article it is agreed: at shall be
competent, however, to either of the contracting
parties, in case either should think fit at any time
after the Goth of October, 1928, giving due no.
ty, to annul and abrogate this conventions; and it
shall in such case be entirely annued and abrogaed
after the ssid term of notice"
The third article saves all rights and claims of
the parties. u..
The first remark is, that these. conventional pro-
visions contain no reference whatever to the pos
session, which by the treaty Of Client, and sub
scquent acts under it, was acknowledged to be in
the United States, in the most formal manner, and
which could not be Invested, except in an equally
formal manner. The reservation made by Lord
Casilerengh cannot affect the possession because il
did not allude to that; and if il did, his subsequent
admissions to Mr.. Rush are to be construed as
giving up that reservation. Then, will ask, how
stands the case now, between the posscssory
rights Of these two governments and their citizens
and subjects' Did the terms OF the articles quoted
from this convention repossess Great Britain her
subjects with what she claimed under conquest,
and before the surrender made to US, as before
shown Clearly the convention did no such thing,
but, on the contrary, has left in the possession
with an agreement on our part that her subjects
might enter the country and exercise mere ease
mems there in the way Of commerce and trade, and
the navigation Of the rivers of the country.
IL the position I take be sustained, as think it
is, by the history and facts Of the case them having
tho possession and right Of possession the right Of
sovereignty over the same necessarily follows az
an incident. There is no palmer axiom than this
to be found in International law; and it is laid down
by very celebrated author on national law, (Vat-
TEL that where one government possesses itself Of
country not pre-occupied by any other, that then
the empire or sovereignty and domain are in such
government. Now, is there any obstacle in the
way Of this governments exercising its sovereignty
- - I.ko