The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-02

ded all her rights claims, and pretonsions 10 the
territories the Pacific north Of tho AID degree Of
north latitude. ....
But il is pretended III at the convention between
Spain and Great Britain, signed at the Eseurial on
the 26th of October 1880, called the "Nootka con
yenton,n which allowed British subjects 10 make
ssitsments for tTade with the Indians, without any
grant Of soil or sovereignty, changes this obvious
result The fourth article of the treaty Of Paris, Of
1853, shows the terms appropriately used by the
three powers, in cession Of soil and sovereignty. No
terms of grant or cesson Of any sort being found in
the Nootka convention, II must be deemed, like the
convention we are seeking 10 annul and abrogate,
a mere international arrangement for Indian trade,
which can, have no. influence on the question Of
soyereignty and title. Great Britain was seeking
no national sovereignty jurisdiction that coast
but TO protect the individual property OF her sub
jeets there, and commercial privileges "for the
purpose Of carrying on their commerce with the
natives Of the country, or OF making settlements
there" and these subject to many restrictions while
SPAIN the rghtful sovereign Of that realm, could
alone impose.
IL is difficult 10 misunderstood the relative posi-
ton Of the two parties to this convention. Spain
claiming 70 be the sovereign Of the country, and
Great Britain simply STIMULATING for the protection Of
the private rights Of her subjects within it, for the sole
purpose Of trading with the Indians the Spanish
eoast-stipuaIions which would be innocent and adj
missible, IL applied this very day, to the Atlantic
coast. There 10 cesson Of any jurisdiction what
eyerto be found 10 that convention.
Indeed, Great Britain "a late the 10th Deem
Der, 1926, declared that she "elams no exclusive
sovereignty over any portion Of that territory her
Prssent ciaims rot In respect 70 any part, but the
Wide, is limited 10 right Of joint occupancy in
common with other Statea, leaving the right Of ex-
elusive dominion in allegiance" This, il must be
admitted, Is very vague and underlined claim, the
convention recognising only the right OF British
subjects to trade with the natives only and even
that subject TO restrictions. Yet Great Britain ad.
mits that whatever her title may have been either
the part of Great Britain, the part Of Spain
prior to the convention of 1870, from thence
forward no longer to be traced in vague narratives
Of discoveries, several Of them admitted to be apoc-
ryphal, but in the text and stpuations of that con-
vention itself" Why, it may be asked, make such
convention with Spain, if she had no right Of soil
or sovereignty there, il she was not entitled on
British principles Of public law, to the full benefit Of
all her discoveries and settlements on that coast,
while she was at so much pains and expense to
make this an organized department Of her govern
menI established for that express purposeI Great
Britain, up TO that time, had never sent out single
ship for any such purpose Drake pirate, and
navigated the seas for plumber, and instead of a
halter, received from his sovereign knighth0od
Cook WIS sent to discover the much-wished- for
western passage TO China, and had strict orders not
10 take possession OF any part Of the coast already
discovered or visited by any European power In un-
Ihabitfd countries he was TO erect the proper sym
bols Of possession.
He made no discoveries which had not been made
years before by Spanish Hsvigstors, except the
Icy cape. Perez in Nootka sound in IVA
and Bodega Quedra in IT'S, had named a
mountain under the parallel OF $40 Mount San ia
ein,o, which Cock saw in ITS, and called Mount
Edgscomb. And, it may be asked whose right Of
exclusive dominion" over this country was thus
t,, in ahsunnca ~ MD Gn.in h., ,h.t
ventou, agree to anything more than this: that
whilst the convention existed, her exclusive sover-
eighty and jurisdiction over the country up to the
6lst degree Of north latitude which she had repeat
ed asserted and insisted on before the powers Of
Europe, and not questioned by them, should not be
exercised
But this convention, whatever it may have been,
was abrogated on principles Of British law as pro-
nounced by one Of her most distinguished ministers
and statesmen, Lord Bathurst. He said, in his
correspondence with our government in 1915;
Great Britain knows Of no exception TO the rule
that all treaties are put an end to by a subsequent
war between the same parties, The wor Of 1876,
between Spain and Great Britain abrogated this con-
ventioB, and revoked this license OF trade and set
Element, and il has never been renewed. No subse-
quent treaty between these powers can be shown,
which in their terms, or by their spirit and inten-
ton, rsnews this convention.
The mode, as practised by these very powers Of
renewing treaty after war; is by express re-
cal and renewal Of it by date particular descrp-
ton and confirmation. The second section Of the
treaty of Paris Of 1862 often referred to, shows
the mode in which Great Britain and Spain, and
France renew treaties 1t is in this form:
THE treaties oflwesphaa of I64s; those of Madrid be.
the crowns Of Great Britain and Spain of 1867 and
1870 the treaties Of of Nimequen Of 1875 aud 1872 Of
Utrecht Of i7ia that Of Baden OF INA the treaty Of the
triple alliance Of the Hague Of l7 that of the qusdruple
alliance Of London of l7s; the defnive treaty OF Vienna
of 1885, the denve treaty of AixaChapelle l7ls and
that Of Madrid between the of Great Britain and
span Of 1880 well the between the crowns
spain and Portugal OF the Ish February 1885, of the 9Th
OF February 75 and Of the 18th Of Febeuary l76l and
that of the ith Of April INA between France and Portu.
gal with the Of Great Britain serve as
the and the
form well the treaties in general phieh subsed be-
tie high contracting parties before me they
inserted here ord for werd so hat they TO D. srac
obserped for the future in their whole tenor" ~.
The treaty Of Madrid Of 1914, did not revive the
Nootka convention, or any commercial treaty, ex-
cept those relating to commerce between Great Brit
ain and Old Spain, not including her American colo
MES or distant possessions. How, then, it may
well be inquired, can "the text and stpuations of
the Nootka convention" which did not originally
grant anything to Great Britain, but merely permit
ted British subjects to settle for trading purposes
upon the northeast coast, and did not even grant to
them the fee simple of their settlements, be now
regarded as such foundation of title in Great Brit
ain as will justify her in demanding Of us, who have
succeeded by fair purchase to all the rights of SPAIN
a division Of the country With equal propriety
might tenant ht will or at suAferance, who has oc-
cupied the premises Of another under license I'M
moested for series of years, demand of the pro-
prietor, on receiving notice to quit partition Of
the farm, or the occupied fed.
Another view Of this conviction may be urged
Whilst II was now alleged by Great Britain in full
force, why did she in 1918, before had acquired
the Spanish title, voluntarily enter into this conven
ton with us the Goth Of October of that year. so
inconsistent it is with her engagements with
Spain under the Nootka convenon,-and why did
she not base her pretensons at that time, as she
does now, on its "text and stipulations," and not
in ''vague narratives Of discoveries some Of them
admitted to be apocryphal." If she really believed
the convention of l7ao was in force, it is incompro
hensible that she should no. have urged it, BY ne
giectng u do these differences fair and natu-
rat:
First. That Great Britain no longer considered
the Nootka treaty in existence or binding upon herr
otherwise she could not have violated her obliga-
tons to Spain, by covering the same ground in
treaty with mother power
Second. That by transferring her obligations from
Spain to the United States, Great Britain thereby
ocL rbt in tbo tod i'd.