Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1845-1851, 1846-06-13
could not have existed if this discovery had been then

So would this question stand if Spain had been
party to the treaty of Utrecht had been bound by
any ARA ngement made by France and England, for
the establishment of line between their respective
territories But the fact is, that any such arrange
ment for the partition of the country west of the
Rocky mountains was impossible, from the circum-
stances of the times ard from the position cf those
three powers. The treaty of Utrecht terminated the
long and bloody war which out of the Spanish
succession. Louis XIV succeeded in placing his
grandson Philip V. upon the throne of Spain. France
and Spain closely connected, and had fought tie
war together They were allies, and the enemies of
Eng gland The Spanish jealousy of that and of the
following age, respecting the Spanish possessions,
especially those upon tie Pacific is well known and
al that time, 10 other power lnterposed an adverse
claim 10 that region. 1t is utterly incredible that in
such state of things, France would TO the
extension of the British possessions to the northwest
coast and least of ALL that she would make herself
party to such fragrant act of injustice 1t was not
a single treaty of Utrecht which put end to the
war There were different treaties formed. The one
between France and England was a treaty Of peace,
AMI also treaty for the regulation Of commerce
and Tor tie establishment of boundaries. That be-
tween Spain and Eng land treaty of pence and
commerce only; and contained no stipulatons re-
speeding boundary An effort by France and Eng land
To divide the country upon the northwest coas'
between them, would have been resisted by Spain a.
act of Instead of any such effort, this pre-
tension OF their right to appropriate to themselves
country unknown u them, seriously asserted IN
tie American Senate, has been unreyealcd to the
world, TIL called INTO existence at this late day, and
announced without any real evidence support it.
"A means of settling controversy about limits, In
reton winch neber France nor England had Explored,
and 70 Il foot of which they never laid claim.
shall briefly aliude to other topic, and then
abandon tins discussion. While was happy to hear
the honorable Senator avow his determination to sup
port the recomniC ndatlons of the President in his
at he Of hp ont
session Oh the subject IF Oregon, deeply regretted
TO find, at the time, that In the far inpor-
taIt point, he differs essentially from the President,
and proposes course which, 1t seems to me, Is not
only mpotIc and unusual. but which Will necessarily
lead TO the loss Of half Of the country in dispute
and may lead 10 division of the other half The
President proposes the assertion of uur jurisdiction
over Oregon. The honorable Senator proposes It's
assertion over only about moety of Oregon.
Ihls Is fandam ,nial difference, which no argument
reconcile. The extent OF the Oregon of the Prcs-
dent known 10 all of us 1t i the same Oregon which
cxciics sc! deep solcltude among the American poo
pie. II is bounded north by the parallel Of 81 deg
10 min, announced by Mr.. Buchanan in Il letter
the British minister, dated July Il, l>lj. 1t Is the
same Oregon which is claimed by the British, and
over which they have extended their uri> dicon. But
the Oregon OF the honorable Senator stops ct 0-his
line dividing what neither nature nor political rights
destined 10 division
And why, >r why does the honorable Senator in
opposition To he repeated declarations of the Amer-
can government. and TO the strong feelings of the
American people, erect barrier upon the parallel of
~, saying, Thus far you may come but no further .
Why does he insist upon Legislative annuEciati IN
which, while II could not rive IL the country 10 that
parallel. would forever deprive of all hope of the
country beyond If this question is placed upon the
ground OF expedIency, and If that artificial line upon
the surface OF the globe i assumed as reasonable
line OF comPromse-rcasonable because dividing the
country into two nearly equal parts and because it
has been several times offered by the American GOV
ernment TO the British government, as limit Of con-
ces>ion-then | find no fault with those whc take this
view OF the matter, and who propose thus to terminate
the controversy He who believes that both parties
have an equal title TO the territory question: that
any obligation Is created by offers of compromise
heretofore made aud rejected, may well look upon the
parallel of 10 u,tanj equitable line Of PARTITION.
repeat, find no fault with tins view of the matter.
BIT this Is not the view Of the Senator from Missouri
~ says The ForahH 81 10 Is The line II right, re-
Sating from he truly of Itrccht' Thus" says
the Senator, tie line Of right is the best for both
parties, &c. Foriy-aiae is the line Of righ ,riit
me-" DC.
And why is this the line Of right! Because 1t was
e>iabl she'd by the treaty Of Utrecht. II not thus
established, it is line Of right. And he who seeks
so TO establish 1t must prove 1t. Let the honorable
Senator prove it. submit to him, if the loose and
contradictory notices he has brought forward are suf
n
National dcmarcaton. under any circumstances and
stu less, under existing circumstances coniradictcd
as they are by tie highest considerations and by the
most respectable authorities. | submit To him. whc-
thcr 1t IS wise to stop his country's pretcnsions
without The most irrcragablc evidence, that his coun-
try Is wrong.
Is there such evidence, The Senator refers aoain
to the progress of this negotiation, and nvokes the
acts OF Mr.. Jefferson and of Mr.. Madison as indca-
tive OF their opinion. shall not 90 over this ground
oaiy recalling. that all this was before the Florida
treaty and before the discovery of the error respect
ing The ilne OF Utrecht. Our rights have since then
been extended BY purchase and made known by cor
rect historical Investigations.
The Senator SAYS:
" is The line Of li.ht resulting from The treaty Of IT.
rech' aud such, always looked caIy STAGES Of
tins controversy both ty American aud Brlti statesmen
the counties" II the line of all the American states
men, without exception, twenty and f,,iy yeas ago"
Nov, SIR, here Is great error, and am going to
prove 1t. | am going to prove that thi, parallel of
ID was not the line of all the American statesmen
twenty aud forty years ago Nay more. sir am
gpln5 t. prove II was not the line of the Senator
himself And he has given proof by long ycars Of
services, OF his right to the tide of an eminent
statesman The task is an easy one. 10 tie bic and
TO tis testimony.
In the very first negotiation. in ISIS mon his
SUBJECT, after the war; and before the acquisition Of
FLORIDA, III the statement OF tire claims of the United
States, Messrs. Rush and Gallatn odd not assert
that the United States had " perfect right to the
country, but INSISTED that their claim was AZ asf rood
against treat Britain
In 1873, Mr. Monroe proposed to England and
kuSsIa, as hive already shown that the parallel of
81 deg. should be our northern boundary.
Mr. Rush, IN a communication To Mr. Adams dat
ed August l2ih, ISL. informed him. that in his
interview VIII The British ministers, he had claimed
Tor the United States - IN their own riphf and as
their absolute aud exclusive sovercgniy tie whole
country west of the Rocky Mountains from the 12d
degree to at least far up the 5lst degree of north