The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-09

Coming down TO this pretended principle, that
the discovery Of the mouth Of a river gives title
TO all the land waiered by that river and its rbuia
ries-and this is the ground on which We contend
that the Mississippi valley, among the rest belongs
to us-that title is a parcel Of the rights by which
you hold that scat, and by which all property is
held. This charter Of Charles ], 10 the colony of
Massachusetts Bay, gives from 40 TO 40 degrees of
latitude, without reference 10 any rivers The
kings of England, following the example OF
the Pope OF Rome undertook 10 grant lands all over
this continent, and upon such terms az they thought
proper When they found the mouth OF river,
and II was for their interest TO claim the territory
wstered by that river, they claimed il. Louis XIV
gave to Frozart-snd that is the title by which we
still hold that country-he gave him no land, but
gave him merely the power to trade with the Mis-
sissippi river and all its tributaries, because that
river had been discovered by French subjects ma
ny years before coming from Canada.
All these titles are imperfect. Discovery Is,
therefore, no title of iIself The discovery ola rv-
er and Of land isno title Of itself Exploration
comes next. That gives something more of
title. Continuity and contiguity both concur
IN themselves. There is nothing complete IN the
way Of tide, but actual possession and that
10 the only thing we now want 10 have per-
feet, clear, indsputable, and undoubted right to
the territory Of Oregon. IL is possessions it is oc
cupation il you please Well, sir, we have made
one in lS27-by which We have not agreed 70 any
thing like joint occupation Sir, in the days Of Sir
John Fastaf, so facetously alluded to by the gen
demsn from Ohio Mr. the other
day, lie says, "a captaiWLthese Williams will make
the word captain as odious as the word occupy,
which was an excellent good word before il was
ill-sorted.n Now this Occupation" is as "odious"
in some parts, as Sir John Falstaf said the
word occupy" was In his time, after It had been
''ill-soded." There Is no occupation now. occupa-
ton Is the thing We want Occupation is what
am for putting an end 10 that convention for; be-
cause II says we shall not occupy that territory.
The gentleman from Georgia, in his personal
remarks To me, has thought proper to call upon me
to say why, in 1918 and again in 1927, was will
ling TO agree TO this convention with Great Britain
while now pretend to say we have a right to the
whole Of Oregon. Why, / will tell the gentleman
and this House.
Mr.. KING IN. A. yielding the hoor) explained
that he had asked the gentleman why he did not
enter protest against the claim asserted by Great
Britain, il he believed that we had the right to the
whole territory.
Mr.. ADAMS, (eontinuing.) will endeavor to
answer the gentleman according 70 his own idea,
why did not enter protest. In the first instance
il was in subordinate capacity that acted as Sec
rotary Of State, under most excellent man, whose
memory | shall always retain with venerution-
James Monroe, the President Of the United States;
and in the second place, when held the Office of
President of the United States, did make the pro-
test in the convention itself II the gentleman will
read the convention over again he will see a for
NAL protest against the claim Of Great Britain. The
third article of the convention of 1918 is follows:
"t agreed that any country that may be claimed by
either party on the northwest coast OF America westward
Of the stony mountains, shall together with its babors
bays and creeks and the all rivers within the
same be free and open for the term Of years from the
date Of the signature Of the present convention to the YES
sells citizens and subjects OF the powers: il being well
this not 10 be The
prejudice Of any claim which either Of two high CON
tracing Psre.psy have to any part Of the said country;
any part Of the said coun the only object Of
the high in that respect being pre-.
vent disputes and differences among themselvss"
Is that joint occupation? or separate occupation,
asked Mr.. Az No such thing. IL is non .occupa-
ton. The territory 10 to be free and open TO all the
world-o the vessels, citizens, and subjects OF the
two powers for ten years. and this convention is
expressly declared not to affect any claim of either
Of the two high contracting parties, "nor,,-please
to observe this, for | mean to draw an argument
from the wording here-"nor shall IL be taken TO
affect the claims Of any Other potper""the only OBJ
ject"--now, sir, give my answer to the gentleman
from Georgis-"being to prevent disputes and diff.
ferences" among the contracting parties.
That is the object; and that being the ony
object, and the article itself being confined to ten
years is there not decided intimaton that, at the
end of that ten years, differences would come AGAIN.
Is there not sufficiently clear protest against any
claim Great Britain may have' And not only SO,
bet reservation Of the rights of any other partyl
Who was that other partyi Spain was, and
that is very clear and explicit admission that Spain
had right in that country which was not to be nf-
fected.
Well, this was in 1873 Now this convention
was stpuated for ten years and desire this COM
mittee to observe this very expression showing that
both parties understood that this question as TO their
respective claims was not to be settled during the
course Of that ten years; but at the expiration of
that term, that they would come up again. 1t was
equivalent to full, plain claim to the whole territory
just as our secretary is making it now but it was
said that both parties, not choosing to settle their diff
ferences agree for ten years that the country with
its harbors bays creeks, and rivers shall be open
for the navigation of both parties without either
party claiming exclusive jurisdiction during that
time That was all.
But let me observe further, at that time, what was
our tie' and what was the title the claim of Great
Britain In that negotiation, and in the subsequent
negotiations, down., believe, perhaps to this very
day, Great Britain claims no exclusive jurisdiction
over any part Of that territory, She herself admits
that she has no title there's she pretends that she has
none. But what does she say' She says that is an
open country; that it is of those countries occu-
pied as far it is occupied at ALL only by barbar-
Gus nationshat it is country which is open to all
parties. She does not claim exclusive jurisdiction.
promise you she will, if you suffer her to do it, be-
fore she has done, not only TO what you choose to
give her, but to the whole territory. But at this
day she claims no exclusive JURISDICTION over the
whole country. She claims, and by virtue of this
convention to have the country free and open--th
is to keep i, in savage and barbarous state for her
hunters-for the benefit of the Hudson Bay Com
pany for hunting. Now, she knows that it would
have no value to her at all from the day that it is
settled by tillers of the ground. 1t is abolished
from that time by the nature of things. And therein
consists the difference between her claims and our
claims We claim that country--for whaii To
make the wilderness blossom "a the rose, to estab-
lish laws, to increase, multiply, and subdue the
earth, which we are commanded to do by the first
behes of God Almighty. That is what we claim it
for. She claims to keep it open for navigation, for
her hunters to hunt wild beasts; and of course she
claims for the benefit of the wi beasts, as well as
of the savage nations There Is the difference be-
tween our claims.
| hope have satisfied the gentleman from Geor.
gia not only why did not in other words protest
against the claim of Great Britain, but why, having
agreed to that convention at that time for ten years.
and afterwards for its continuance indefinitely until
it should no longer be for interest and rights
to continue it, am now for putting an end to that