Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-01-13
THE OREGON NEGOTIATION.
Icnrrespondemes niM the Department Of State
CONTINUED
IN IN
X. ~
W,suISaroN July %. 1915.

10 receive on the 10th Of this month, from the
hands Of the Secretary OF Stale oil Tue uhie''
States, terminating with proposition on The part
of the United States for the settlement Vi Inc Ore
son question. ~
United States 10 that portion Of the Oregon terri
tory between the valley OF The Columbia and the
Russian line, 10 81 deg. 40 min North latitude,
is recorded in the Florida treaty. Under ms lIea-
", dated on 22d February, 1919, SPAN ceded 70
The United States all her rights, claims ana PIE
tensions 10 any territory west oil Inc ROCKY noun,
,ains, and north of the 42d parallel OF latitude.
awe conten ;" says the Secretary OF State that
a, The date of this convention, Spain had good
title, as against Great Britain, TO The whole Ore
son territory; and ifths be established, The ques.,
lion is then decided in favor Of the U. States,
The convention between Great Britain and Spain,
signed al the Escurial, on The 2Slh October, l19o,
Notwithstanding. -.
AT" says the American Pleniroe tertiary, I'll
should appear that this treaty was transient IN us
very nature; that il conferred upon Great Britain
no right but that Of merely trading with the in-
dams, willis, The country should remain unsettled,
and making the necessary establishments for this
purpose; that il did not interfere with The ull-
male sovereignty OF Spain ever the territory !;
and, above all, that il was annnIled BY the war
between Spain and Grea, Britain, in 1885, and
has never since been renewed by the parties, then
will provet to be destitute of foundation"
The undersigned will endeavor 10 show, not on
" that when Spain concluded wi h the United
States the treaty OF 1919, commonly called The
Florida treaty, the convention concluded between
the former power and Great Britain, in 1870, was
considered by the parties to il to be still IN iorcr
but even that, il no such treaty had ever existed
Great Britain would stand, with reference TO
claim TO the Oregon territory, in position at
leoSt nc 10 Timed StalPS
The treaty OF 1870 is not appealed 10 by the
British Government, as the American Plenpo-
Tertiary seems TO suppose, as their main reliance
in the pfesen, discussion il is appealed 10 10 show
that, by The treaty of 1919, BY which "Spain &C.
ded TO the Uniled States all her rights. claims,
and pretensions 10 any territories West oil The
Rocky mountains and North OF the AID parallel
OF latitude" the United States acquired no right
TO exclusive dominion over any par, of The Ore
gon territory.
The treaty of 1890 embraced, in fact, variety
of objects II parook in some OF its siipulations
of the nature OF commercial convention; In
other repects il must be considered as an &C
acknowledgement of existing rights-an admission
Of certain principles OF International law, not 10
be revoked at The pleasure Of either party 10 be
sci aside BY cessation OF friendly relations be-
tween them.
Viewed in the former light, its slipulatons
might have been considered as cancelled in conse-
uuence Of the war which subsequently took place
between the contracting parties, were II not that
by the treaty concluded al Madrid, on the 2SIh
August 1914, il was declared that all the treaties
of commerce which suhsisted between the Two
nations (Great Britain and Spain) in 1876 were
thereby ratified and confirmed.
In the latter point Of view, The restoration Of
state OF peace was OF itself sufficient 10 restore
The admissions contained in the convention OF
1870 10 their full original force and vigor.
There are, BESIDES very positive reasons for
concluding that Spain did not consider the stipu-
laions Of the Nootka Sound convention 10 nave
been revoked by the war OF 1885, so as 10 require,
in order 10 be binding on her, that they should
have been expressly revived or renewed on the
restoration oil peace between the Two countries.
Had Spain considered that convention TO have
been annulled by the war; in other words, had
she considered herself restored 10 her former
position and preiensions with respect to Inc ex-
elusive dominion over the unoccupied parts oil
The North American continent, it is not TO be |
imagined that she would have passively sub
mitted 10 see the conlendins claims OF Great
Britain and the United States 10 a portion OF
that territory the subject OF negotiation and Tor.
NAL diplomatic transactions between those two |
nations.
|. is, on the contrary, from her silence with re-
spect 10 the continued occupation, BY The British
OF their settlements in the Columbia territory, |
subsequent 10 the convention OF 1914, and when
as vet there had been no transfer of her rights, |
claims, or pretensons 10 the United States; and |
from her silence also while important negotia- |
lions respecting The Columbia territory, incompa-
tibe altogether with her ancient claim to excln- |
sive dominion, were in progress between Great
Britain and the United States, fairiyto be inferred
that Spain considered The stpuatons OF the Moot
la convention, and the principles therein laid
down, TO be still in force.
d., IT. A nIa In
as 10 say that the British Government itself had
no idea in 1918, thai The Noetka Sound conven-
ton was then in force, because no reference was
made 10 il on the part Of England during Inc ne
gotialion of that year. on the Oregon question.
In reply TO this argument, it will be sufficient
for the undersigned TO remind The American pen-
ipotentiary, that in the year 1918 no claim as de-
rived from Spain, was CT could be put lofth ny
The United States, seeing that it was not until
The following year (the year 1919 that The lrea-
was concudedby which Spain transferred to The
United States her rights claims, and pretensions
10 any territories West Of The Rocky mountains,
and North OF The 42d parallel Of latitude.
Hence, il is Obvious that in the year 1913 no
occasion had arisen for appealing 10 The quail
fed nature OF the rights, claims, and pretenslons
so transterred-a qualification imposed, or at
least recognized by the convention oil Nootka.
The title of The United States TO the valley OF
the Columbia, the American penipo,entiary OBJ
serves, is older than the Florida treaty ni Febru-
ary, 1919, and exists independently of It's provis-
ions. Even supposne, then, that The British con-
struction OF the Noolka Sound convention was
correct it could not apply TO this portion oil lhe
territory in dispute
The undersigned must be permitted respect
fully TO inquire upon what principle, unless Il
be upon the principle which forms The foundation
of the Noolka convention, could the United States
have acquired title TO any part OF the Oregon
territory previously TO the treaty Of 1919, and in
dependenlly OF lis provisions By discovery, ex-
ploration, settlement, will be the answer
But, says the American plenipotentiafy, in an
other part OF his statement, the rights OF SPAN 70
The ives, coast of America, as far north as Tue
Glst degree of latitude, were so complete as never
to have been seriously questioned bY any Euro
pean nation.
They had been maintained By Spain with The
most velant jealousy, ever since the discovery
of the American continent, and had been &C,
oniesced in by all European powers. They had
been admitted even by Russia; and that, too, IN
der a sovereign peculiarly tenacious ofthe Terrific
rial rights OF her empire, who, when complaints
had been made 10 the court OF Russia against
Russian subjects, for violating the Spanish terri
tory ON the northwest coast OF America, did not
hesitate 10 assure the King Of Spain that she was
extremely sorry that the repeated orders issued
10 prevent the subjects OF Russia from violating
in the smallest degree, The territory belonging 10
another power, should have been disobeyed.
In whatdid this alleged violation Of territory
consist Assuredly in some attempted acts OF
discovery, exploration, or settlement.
AT that time, Russia stood in precisely inc
same position with reference 10 the exclusive
rights of Spain as the United States, aud any
acis in contra vention of those rights, whether
emana,ing from Russia or from the United States,
would necessarily be judged by one and the same
How, then, can ii be pretended that acts which,
in The case OF Russia, were considered as crlml-
nal violations of the Spanish territory, should, ~
the case of cilizens OF the Uniled States DC APP
nealed 10 as constituting valid title to the terri
tory affected BY them? and yet from ibis inconsis-
tency, The American plenpo,entiary cannot es-
cape, if he persists in considering the American
title 10 have been perfected by discovery explora-
tinn and settlement when as yet Spain had made