The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-19
ARBITRATION AND THE rNrrLIIoyScgR

ARBITRATION AND THE ISTELLlOENCER
The two articles in reference 10 arbitration which
we published on Friday last--,he one holding up TO
public scorn the ARBITRATION PLOT, as laid
open with such unblushing efrontery over the in
iuals ~. w. W." in the Courier Of the 2sth
ult-and the other exposing, by extensive and va
ried quotations from the public press, the mon
slrous mlsstatements Of the lnteligeneer and the
Journal Of Commerce, in reference to the public
judgment on the arbitration eouespondsnce--th
two ARTICLES have stung the Inteligeneer so sorely
to make that journal forget IN a great measure,
lis prudence ana its decency. OF these articles the
lntellgeneer sees ft to hold the following language:
ave have read them both through with atten.
tlon thinking TO receive from them some light as TO
the motives OF the administration in rejecting the
liberal offer the part Of the British government
and 70 their further purpose IN reference 10 this
question. But we have looked in vain. We lind
them not single fact or argument going 10 sustain
the late act Of toe Executive, but, in lieu of IT,
perfect sIuee Of coarse and rude aspersion upon the
friends OF the honor and true interests Of this coun-
Try, which are compounded and put in jeopardy by
that act
The first article Of the Union IS mere fanfar-
onade dsgraceful 10 the administrator and unwor-
less excepuonable, is in a spirit unworthy Of good
cause-cleary indicative, indeed, Of bad one, or
at least very weak one. For instead Of refutng or
attempting 10 rtae, objections, and those Of nearly
every independent jour al in the country, and
among those the Journal of Commerce. paper
which has been claimed To have elected Mr.. Polk TO
the PresIdency-the government editor undertakes
to say, Of that paper and Of this that it has ar
aged itself against the United States in the case of
Oregon, and thoroughly taken the British side as
much the National lntelhgencer has done in
relation TO our rights and boundaries, well in
the measures Of adjustment
The noticeable parts of this extract we have put
italics. They consist Of an ill., hammered vilica
ton, in very disreputabe language, wedged in be-
tween nco untrue assertions as to matters Of fact.
LIST. The lntelligencer says that after an attentive
reading OF our two articles it "fnds in them not
single fact or argument going to sustain the late act
Of the Executive" in the rejection Of the offer Of
bitration. In reply to this, laying out of view the
second of our articles, made up mainly Of our COM
ments introducing and connecting citations from
other journals, we quote from first article, the
"mere fanfaronade, disgraceful to the administra
ton, and unworthy Of any notice whatever" in the
view of the Intelligencer, the following passage:
70,
arbitration must always be an exceptIonnble and
suspicious mode Of adjusting territorial questions.
Especially must this be so, when the people and
the government are recognised the rightful
owners Of the soil. Most especially must this be so,
when the question arises in fact between a great
republic on the one hand, and the other a great
and grasping corporation which stretches itself out
six thousand miles the arm and hand
of an unreienting commercial and colonzins
monarchy. Arbitration with such a power
must always be repugnant to American patri-
otism. And if the question of right he clear-if
the chance of impartial arbitration be hopeless
the stake be of immense and incaculable value to
one party and of comparatively very little value to
the other-if the value TO the parties be indeed ex.
actly in inverse ratio to their respective rghts-and
if the party Of the worse right have in fact, by the
position constitution, and character of its govern
ment all the chance of concentrated and controlling
influence over the arbitratng powcr-then we say,
tn at under such circumstances, land they are ex-
actly the circumstances Of our Oregon contro yersy
with Great Britain resort by our government TO
arbitration even if authorized in express terms by
the federal constitution, must be almost always and
every way dangerous and Objectionable But. in
view of the fact that il ia a procedure wholly un-
known to our constitution and foreign to its spirit
that it assumes what is very doubtful, the right Of
our government to alien sol--what 10 more
than doubtful-the right Of the government to
put the possession Of our soil out of the
control Of our people, who themselves it's
owners--in view Of all these facts resort to
arbitration by our government on a question
like the question of Oregon seems to be re-
sponsibility which no administration, mindful of its
relations and of its duties to the people, can ever
permit itself in any manner to assume.
"But this array Of objections 10 arbitration in itself
and we have only glanced at a matter which we
may have occasion TO discuss fully hereafter
these objections to arbitration in itself, we say con-
stitute only thng-a mere fracton-of the por-
tentous scandal Of the WING ARBITRATION rLoT."
So much for the "Inelligencer's" first assertion
that it finds in our article "sngle fact or argu-
going TO sustain the late of the Executive
in rejecting arbitration. That the "Intellgencer''
had read this passage when it so wrote, we shall not
affirm Still less shall we say that if so, the "Inel-
ligencer had Needed and comprthtndsd what it cad
for certainly we have wish design to assail
the veracty Of that Journal and so we hope that il
can truly plead thick and gross ignorance as an ex-
cuse for the foolish assertion on which we are now
remarking. But having reproduced the passage Of
our article-or, rather, our "fanfaronade"-we aver
positively
|. That it contains within its few lines create,
number # separate facts and arguments against a,bra
ton than can be found in is apor in all that has ap
peared edtorally in the "lntegencer" on the sub.
ect.
O. We aver, in the second place, that the Intel
lgeneer" has not yet Attempted edorally so far as
we have seen, to anSor one Of the facts and argu.
ments so presented against arbitration.
3. And in the third place, we now challenge III,
"Intcgencer" to reply to these our positions; nnt
we promise that Journal lift shall do so, an Or,rihrop
as conclusive and signal IT met with at our hand
on the question, Of the Del Norte boundary. w,
make this promise in boastful spirit (far from, it,
but solely from our confidence in the justice of GU
Il ..,I IL NJ A..