The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-04

had none before; and N that convention was loini
mated by the war Of 1885, then with Il terminated
all the rights which Great Britain had on the norlh-
west coast Of America. Precisely the contrary;
Great Britain, from the very beginning, eon'ehdeo
that Spain had no exclusive right Of
contended correctly, that according TO the Jaw "
natlons discovery without settlement gave no u'ie,
and she has been scrupulous in all her negouau1hs
since, 10 maintain, on that ground, not only hei
own rights, but those of other nations. Let mus
matter be understood. Great Britain never had
any other object-she has not now, oehese,
any other olject-than to carry on the iut
trade in this part Of the continent. believe tnA'
when that trade is exhausted she will be qulle
ready TO abandon the country If let aionei ana u
anything induces her TO make permanent agrleul-
tura settlement there. believe il will be the contest
with the United States. II has been said in this
discussion that this territory ia twenty thousand
miles-at least fifteen thousand mies--dlstant from
England, and that II Is so remote that II - hardly
conceivable that it could be made the foundation OF
colony. ! should like to know what portion OF
the globe, offering advantages for colonization,
would be deemed too remote by Great Britain But
To proceed. So far from Great Britain supPosng
that the Spanish had the undoubted right OF soyer-
eighty, and that that only suspended by the
convention will call the attention Of the Senate TO
one or two remarks showing the very opposite
made in the course Of the debate in the House OF
Commons. Mr.. Fox, although opposed TO the
king, distinctly upon the ground, not that England
should obtain merely an indemnlheston for the
vessels taken and the property seized, but that Spain
should be made TO renounee the pretended and abb
surd title which she had set up. The fact Is I'M
doubtedy true, az the Secretary Of State has de-
clsred that, in all her discoveries, Spain did not
send her nayigators 10 acquire title, but 10 sseer-
tain the character Of the country to which she
thought she had title under the grant OF Pope Al
exander vi. Here Mr.. Med. read an ex-
tract from the speech Of Mr. Fox, in the House
Of Commons, sustaining the view Just given
| will not trouble the Senate with reading
the remarks made by any OF the other speakers on
this occasion in the British Parliament; but they all
concur in the same view. Mr.. Pitt himself declares
expressly that the property Of the subjects Of Great
Britain had been seized in country to which she
had as clear a right Spain, and that the preten-
sionS Of Spain TO exclusive sovereignty were totally
unfounded think have shown that Spain had
no right by virtue Of her discoveries. think lhave
also shown that Great Britain has denied the right
Of Spain from the moment she had any occasion to
contest Il. So far our claim rests that Of
Spain, really regard il not at ALL and believe that
previous TO the convention and during the discussion
with Great Britain in 1918, neither she nor the Uni
ted States, gave, for one moment the slightest con-
slderaton 10 the Spanish claim. For il will be re-
membered, and now assert it, that Spain never did
make a settlement on that coast Mr.. Greenhow
states that she never made settlement until 1859
Without going into that, | contend that IN any
Just sense Of the term she never made a settle
ment-neyer intended to make a settlement-ney-
er indicated the design to make settlement We'll,
let it be remembered that previous to 1889, or few
years previous, nobody supposed that settle
ment on that coast was possible II universally
regarded an iron-bound coast, without bay in
let, or any place where a vessel could obtain even
temporary relief. Nobody had ever attempted TO
land north Of very southern latitude. Spain
had never designed TO make a settlement there. |
have heard II said in the of this debate that
the settlements Of Great Britain were for trading
purposes, but that Spain intended to settle it for ag
riculturul purposes. Where is the evidence that
Spain intended to settle it for agricultural purposes
or for any other purpose She had hundreds Of
thousands Of square miles Of territory south Of that
country, infinitely more valuable, which to this
day she has not been able TO people, and perhaps
never will. But the settlement at Nootka sound
let call to that the attention Of the Senate with
a view to the argument advanced yesterday by the
honorable senator from Arkansas, and which has
been very ngeniously made use Of in another quarter
some time ago. Ii Is contended that one Of the
clauses Of the Nootka Sound convention, which re-
fes the captures made subsequent to the final rat
fcaton Of the treaty, the claims which England de-
rived under the Nootka Sound convention were
north Of Nootka sound because Nootka sound was
the northern Spanish settlement Now a settle
ment according TO the law Of nations, is that in the
sense eNlQeDUy uScu In the COnNentlOn oil NOOka,
and means a body Of people settling down with a
view to reside in the country. That is settlement.
What the character Of the Spanish settlement
at Nootka sound Meares had indicated some
intention Of making a settlement. He had
gone there and built houses-as he alleges
and another English captain who came there
afterwards, says he was directed to make a per-
mament settlement there. Be that as il may, what
the nature of the Spanish settlement Why
there one or two armed vessels sent there by
the Spanish authorities for the sole and exclusive
purpose Of driving out the English and Russians, or
any others whom they might find there. They took
military possession and retained that possession
how long? Why exactly up to the period when
according that convention she gave it up to Grea
Britain, distinctly acknowledging by the act of sur.
| render that she had not title to it herself Now
beg the Senate for one moment to take up the
Nootka convention and read it, and if there is one
word or syllable in il which implies a greater right
in Spain than existed in England will abandon the
| question. 1t Is on the contrary a treaty which
on the very face Of it, contains such provisions as
imply that both countries on perfect equality
| neither shall be disturbed in carrying on trading
operations; the right of sovereignty is not conceded
either to Spain Great Britain but is to remain in
allegiance. And yet it is assumed in this discussion
that if the treaty of Nootka has been terminated by
the Of 1916, all the claims of England have term
mated Here a sentence was lost Now, permit
me to say, that we are binding ourselves by argu
| ments plausible enough; we are impo ing upor
ourselves and the people of the U. States. believe
the Nootka Sound convention was terminated by tn,
war of 1896. believe that it has never been revived
And believe that the claims Of Great Britain ar,
Just that much stronger. The Nootka Sound con
vention so far as it recognised the historical ant
great leading fact that the country open to set
dement, by all nations, has not been repealed. Their
stands the acknowledgment of Spain and the sur
render of Nootka sound-the rendering up Of that t
the British captain in l795, and the abandonment b,
the Spaniards. There is clear acknowledgment
on the part Of Spain herself that the country wa
open to settlement by Great Britain and all othe
nations equally with Spain. What results, then
from the termination of that conventoni II place
the two countries exactly where they stood before
| In 1896, Spain had abandoned the country. Sh
never returned. believe even the trading vessel
Of Spain never returned to that coast after 1895
when it was abandoned by her to the British. W.
purchased what claim she had. She ceded to US i,
1919 all her rights, claims, and Pretensions. VIVA
were they' Claims and pretensions are nothing
What we're the rights She had claimed the coun
ry--she had abandoned it-abandoned il for 25 o
80 years-a total MISUNDERSTANDING no in
| tention of ever returning or claiming any part O