Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-09-01
THF ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, VA.
SATURDAY. Morning, August 20, 1916.
NAVIGATION OF THE COLUMBIA.

Saturday Morning, August 10 io-o.
NAVIGATION OF THE COLUMBIA
No ono reoced more cordially than ourselves
=, Tho ratification of the Oregon Treaty. nc
4oth parallel OF latitude was the line whie" '''"'
The FIRST we looked upon as the probable measure
If adjustment Il had been offered SIX times oy
our Government, and promptly rejected py Eng
land. When she finally returned The ohei, ru,
inc ne much more liberal terms than she hau
over boen nduced 10 do before, we could acceP'
it with honor and without sacrihce OF any s'ea'
interest We shall not now e'open Inc 'he' 10
of the oues,ion. Suffice il 10 say, that our conVic
linn is still as strong as ever that but Tor Inc no.
lice" policy OF the President the question ~'u''
have been kept open, as source al deep ifl'a-
,;on and England would have had no inducemeh'
to make her liberal advance. AT the same ''tne'
we give all due credit 10 the Senate lot CLOSING 'ne
door upon further controversy.
On, !, bas been commended, that The treaty yields
the Dcrpctuol navigation OF the Columbia river
and. in that particular, contains "nest'eSS o'
tp,ure difficulty with Great Britain. To a su-
perfcial observer, there nigh, be some force ID
This view, without an examination OF the facts OF
the case. We propose 10 present, in one view'
the true merits of the case. II will be seen lha'
there is scarcely shadow OF doubt, that The ma
yjsation OF the Columbia is only temporary
right. conceded 10 The Hudson Bay Company
and TO the British subjects trading with Them, anu
lha, il will expire either in 1863, as Col. Benton
contends, or in 1859, as the Union demonstrates
on stronger grounds.
When The British proposition 10 close The con-
rroyersy between The Two countries, in regard TO
Oregon, was accepted By The Senate, Mr.. bucha-
nan informed Mr.. McLane that he had gwen no
lice 10 Mr.. Pakenham that the Senate had ad-
yised the acceptance OF the British proposition in
limited sense, and instructed him 10 advise Lord
Aberdeen accordingly. In note to his able
speech Col. Benton says:
"No protest has been received from The Bri-
fish Government against this understanding OF
the treaty; SO that the question is al an END
But 10 The facts Of The case, as presented oy
Col. B. and the Union. The extracts are long,
bu, as they remove all doubt as 10 the true mean
ing OF the treaty, and show that this great ques-
ton, al one time so alarming, has been fully set
lled-eaving no loop upon which 10 hang fear
of future cavllins- We deem them worthy of
place in our columns. On SO grave question
every citizen should have full and accurate in
formation:
From the Union.
The n. Y. Courier & Enquirer republishes
and comments upon our late article in reply 10
% l,:n Gu Thof 10 &c f0l
"'rhe Baltimore Sun seems TO take il for grant
ed, with others, that the charter ofthe Hudson
Bay Company, granted BY Charles II, in 1871,
extended To the West of the Rocky mountains
that is. 10 the territory called Oregon; whereas
il would really appear that the charter was con-
fined 10 the territory 10 The East OF the Rocky
mountains and that the only privilege conceded 10
tie Company 10 tie Htsi ri The Rocky mountains
now rests on the Grown grant, 10 the Hudson
Bay Company, OF the exclusive trade with the
Indians in certain paris OF North America, Tor
a term of t,rcnty-on,c years and upon surrender
Of former grant This crown grant was made
10 The company previous 10 1885, and as il runs
only for twenlv-one years, il expires in 1859;
and with it all the benefits OF the navigation OF
the company, which is secured 10 them, and those
trading with them, by The late convention between
the United States and Great Britain"
The New York Courier offers the following
comment upon our article:
"The Union does not say that the crown grant
Of 1888 required the surrender ollhe grant ol 1911
though this is LETT 10 be inferred. II that was The
grant surrendered, then doubtless the grant oflS3S
is the only tenure b. which the Hudson Bay
Company holds its privileges and existence; and
when that terminates, The existence OF The com
pany must terminate, and with il, Of course, the
privilege of navigating The Columbia But il
This crown grant Of 1888 was simply An addition
10 the original charter; il il merely enlarged the
rights conferred by the original grant of 1911,
then lis determination would not in any way al
feet the latter; and although the company in 1859
NAV lose the exclusive trade with The Indians
conceded by the grant of 1888, it would still pre-
serve It's existence and its right 10 trade with Br-
fish subjects or others And this is all that is ne
cessary 10 secure 10 it, according TO the Oregon
treaty the perpetual navigation Of The Columbia
river The explanation ofihe Union, therefore
BY no means clears the question CT lis difficult
ties" &C. &c.
The argument OF the New York editor is GER
lainly no, conclusive. The "lormcr grant" (to
which that OF 1888 rerrs) was another crown
grant in 1921 TO the Hudson Bay Company, as
we'll as 10 The Northwest Company OF Montreal
TO deal with The Indians in furs, &c. In 1924
The claims of The Northwest Company to trade
under this license were extinguished By mutual
CONSENT and in 1888 the new crown grant was
given to the Hudson Bay Company of an ezciu-
size hade with The Indians ives, OF The Rocky
Mountains, but no, TO the prejudice or exclusion
Of any citizen Of the United States; and this grant
was 10 run Tor lwenly-one years II seems, there
fore, to follow, That in 1885, when this royal grant
expires, The right 10 trade with the Indians, and
10 navigate the Columbia, will expire also. The
grant of 1893 does "add" TO and "enlargc" The
rights of the Hudson Bay Company, it is true,
but only for a limited term-viz: lwenly-onc
wears; and The rights of the British who trade with
them on the river will cease also. But though
the grant expires in 1889 west Of The Rocky
mountains, il does not affect The charter oil The
company on The east side Of the Rocky mountains.
Thai charter expressly defines the territories oil
the Hudson Bay Company 10 be those drained
by streams falling into Hudsons bay
Since making The preceding comments we see
in the columns Of this mornings NatIonai iniei-
ligencer the speech delivered by Il. II. Benton,
Esq. in The secret session Of the Senate. The
speech explains with great force the true mean
inc of The Convention as il regards The nayisa-
lion al The Columbia 1t denies and we are hap
nv 10 agree with The Senator, that the convention
does convey to the Hudson Bay Company and 10
call British subjects trading in The same me
right of navigating the Columbia forever. we
are unfortunate enough to differ with the senator
in one respect connected with this point. he
saws the new license begins to take effect in the
wear 1912, and therefore runs 10 1863, when the
rights Of navigation under the late convention
will expire; we hold on the contrary, that The Sc
cond royal grant began in 1888, that II runs for
twenty -one years, and of course expires in 1859,
when the right OF navigation in The Hudson Bay
Company ceases. Upon another point we differ
with The Senator from Missouri. We deny that
there were two Hudson Bay Companies, and TWO
charters, and we are prepared, if necessary, 10
make good our positions:
Extract from Col. Benton's Speech.
The first of these remaining articles, being
the second Of the treaty, is the most material Of
the three: il relates 10 The free navigation OF the
Columbia, and falls 50 far short of what the Bri-
fish have heretofore demanded and Of what We
ourselves have heretofore offered, that it looked 10
me like REIMBURSEMENT OF the whole prelenson.
The British have heretofore demanded, not mere
ly the navigation of the river, but its sovereignty
the sovereignty of its right bank in lis whole
extent, and the joint use OF the stream. We of