The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1846-02-20
X. PAKENHAN.
To tic Hon, JAS. RrcuANAN, &c. &c. &c
Mr. BrtuANNN TO Mr.. PAKENuAH.
DrrARrMgNT or STATE,
WAsHINGroN, Feb. {. 1916.

" AFulsfFA'F'H 80 -
The undersigned, Secretary Of Stale q
the United States, has he honor to nc.
knowledge the receipt Of The note Of Dir.
Pakenham, her Britannia Ms,"-ty's EnYoy
Extraordinary ard Minister Plenipoienta.
~. dated on the 10th uiImo, BY y lach DO
again proposes reference o! the Oregon
question to arbitration. Under has present
proposition the powers Of tho Arbitrator
would not, as in bis last, be limited IN
terms TO the DIVISION Of the TERRITORY be-
tween the parties, but would extend e The
question Of lhcir conflicting titles. There
Is, however, condition annexed 10 this
offer which exposes II to the same obJee.
tion in point o. fact, il not in form, which
was prominently presented 10 he answer
If the undersigned 10 Mr.. Pakcnham's last
proposal. THIS condition -, " that II nei.
'har f,plrtv should be found, in tho opln-
ION oil the arbitrator, 10 possess compete
Title to the whole territory there should, IN
/ that case, be assigned to each TINT portion
I OF territory which would, IN the opinion uf
The arblirallng Power, be called fof by
Just appreciation OF the respective claims
Of each" If the Government Of Tie tjni.
tod States should consent 10 an arbitration
upon such a condition, this might and pro.
badly would be construed INTO an inttma.
ton, II not a direct invitation. 10 Tie arb.
traiar TO divide the territory between the
parties. Were II possible for the pfes.
dent, under any circumstances, TO consen,
to refer the subject 10 arbitration, the little,
aud the title alone, detached from every
other consideration. is the only question
which could be submitted. II no, confined
TO a single point, so strong is the natural
disposition OF arbltrators to please both par.
ties, that 10 almost every instance, whether
OF national or individual controversies, they
make compromising award. We have
a memorable example Of this in our last
arbitration with Great Britain. Notwith.
standing that the arbitrator, under the
terms OF the submission was clearly and
explicitly confined to the decision Of which
was the line Of highlands described in tho
treaty Of peace Of 1888, yet, instead Of
pursuing any range Of highlands whatever,
nc ADVISED that The line should run along
The bed OF river and actually divided tho
territory IN dispute between the parties by
me middle OF the deepest channel Of the
ST. Johns"
The undersigned might content himself
IN answer TO The present proposition, with a
reference TO the observations contained in
ms insl note to Mr. Pakcnham Of the 81
ui''iho' In that II was p.ninly inlimaled
not only that there are "othor conclusive
reasons Tor declining the proposition" in
d'Pendcnily Of tho one which had been
prominently slated, bat it was expressly
assefteda rs the belief Of the President "ihnt
any attempt to refer this question to third
rover would only involve it in new diff.
culios"
The undersigned will, however, proceed
10 state single teason which, apart from
NE intrinsic difficulty of selecting suiia.
bic arbitrator, as well MS other considcra.
hons that might be adduced, is conclusive
On the mind Of the President agains, no.
terence Of this question to arbitration, in
my form which can be devised no matter
what may be the character Of the arbitra.
or-whether sovereign, citizen, or sub
eel ! ms reason is, that he does not be.
le'e The territorial rights Of this nation TO
Do proper subject for arbitration. Ii
nay be tue, that, under peculiar circum-
'ahces, Il the interests NJ srnke were com.
'afa''VeIy small, aud If both parties stood