The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-05

What was the question now presented TO this
House, That they should decide upon our title TO
oregoni No. He would not do that subject the
injustice Of attempting 10 discuss II for moment at
this time. He held in his hand argument Who'll
y unanswerable last letter Of the Secretary Of
State on this subject document which char
aetenzed by more ability than any which had fallen
from the hands Of any secretary before. That ar
gument was conclusive, and was such as would vim
dictate title before any intelligent body. The IL
tie was not now to be discussed; but the question
which was now fairly before them of differ
ent character. Il was, FIRST, have we ever had the
right Of possession, and have we, in any way
transferred that possession 10 Great Britain or 10
her serfsi and, il So what shall be the policy 10 be
adopted by this Congress for uprootug the jursdie-
ton of the British government that territory
These questions he proposed to discuss a few mo-
ments.
Now, in order to ascertain what our position is
this subject, il necessary to look back TO a
few incidents in history TO whether we ever had
possession ofthis territory We learn from the let.
ter of the Secretary of State tina; had exclusive
possession Of that country before the declaration of
war with Great Britain in 1912, We learned, fur
thermore, that Great Britain laid violent hands on
that territory and wrested il from us during that
war. Has that possession been restored by an
act OF Great Britain. One Of the first provisions Of
the treaty Of Client that all territories taken by
either nation from the other nation should be imme-
uihtcly unu Win an OTuer OF
that government from George III, the possession Of
that country was delivered back to the United
States IN 1878, IL il then delivered by Great
Britain 10 this government had there been any sub
sequept acts on the part Of this government which
had Invested US OF this title2 There was no pre-
tence that there had been any such act unless IL
could be pointed out IN this convention Of 1878 Of
joint occupancy, or whatever It might be, which
made about two weeks after the surrender of
that territory 10 the United States in England by
her accredited minister Mr.. Med. read from the
convention OF 1873 Did any gentleman, he asked,
say that the right of possession, or that possession
ITSELF conveyed 10 Great Britain or her subjects
by this conyenton' Certainly not. IL was a mere
transfer Of individual rights to citizens OF Great
Britain, 10 enter that territory, TO fish there TO trade
with the Indians and TO leave the territory at pleas
ure. He insisted, then, that the rights conveyed
were merely individual rights, and that VIC
never in that convention parted for a moment
with the right OF possession, or with possession it.
self. IL that position were correct, how did we
stand In relation TO Great Britain: Were we pre-
cluded by the terms Of that convention from throw.
ing our Jurisdiction over that territory at oncei-
from organizing government at once 10 protect our
citizens, and the soil of that territoryi He denied
that we were. We never could violate any part OF
il, unless we should prohibit the citizens of Great
Britain from the individual rights granted them, such
trading in that country and navigating its waters
Then, he asked, whether il was not competent fer
this government 10 take possession OF this territory
to exercise all the rights Of ownership il far
is necessary for the protection Of our citizens aud
our SOIL provided il did interfere with the indi-
vidua rights conferred upon subjects Of Great Brit
ain under that eonvention' Undoubtedly il was; for
there principle better established by interna-
tonal law, than that where government takes
possession Of country, there IL has empire, sove-
reignty, and the domain, when the country has not
been pre-occupied by another power. .
If then the ia will WERE nra.
hibited from the establishment Of government over
Oregon for the protection Of citizens and the Sc
curity Of our soiR We were not. The question
then arose, what was the best mode for the United
States TO pursue on this subject. Should we give
the notice under the present circumstances or pro-
coed TO the exercise of our rights that territory
without the notice. That the question for us
to decide. During the last session Of Congress he
had voted against the notice. and he held in his hand
the record Of the who voted in the same man.
ner, among which were the names of almost every
member Of the democratic party from the State Of
Ohio, and a large majority of the representatives
from the South; and yet he found for the bill, after
the notice had been incorporated in it, the votes of
almost all his colleagues, and all the southern demo-
Gratis, except three or four. ~ E
He said then, this was question Of expediency.
They were to settle whether they were bound TO
give notice to Great Britain that intended to take
possession Of that territory and whether it should
be by an abrogaiion Of that convention or not. He
held that by taking possession without the notice,
and by exercising the legitimate rights of this gov
eminent pertaining to the soil and to our citizens
we should not interfere with the rights of British
subjects, and that it could be done without offence;
and that hereafter notice could be well given 10
Great Britain that the joint occupancy, whatever
it was, should cease. He was not here to sickle
on this point; he was here to represent the
wishes Of the people-of his own constituents;
he saw by the papers recently that a meeting Of a
large number of the citizens OF his State had passed
resolutions in favor Of the giving the notice. That
being their wish land he holding to the right OF
insirucons) and that being the wish of the Presi.
dent of the United States for whose opinion he had
the greatest respect, and for whose judgment he had
the highest regard, he willing to surrender his
humble opinion, and to carry out the wishes of the
country. Whatever might be the fate Of this no
tee, he should take the responsibility of carrying
out what he believed TO be the wishes Of his con.
stituents in voting for it. Some gentlemen said II
would be very unwise policy on the part of this
government to give the notice when that notice must
result in war. He did not pretend to say wha,
would be the consequences of this act. He did moi
pretend to say what course Of action the British gov.
eminent would see fit to pursue IL the notice were
gten; but certainly in itself ii would not be easu.
btH But when we saw the course that govern
ment had taken; that her subjects had erected fori
catons and that they had certainly taken possession
Of that country if at the end of the twelve months
ercised over that country should be exercised nc
longer, war to come--let it come; and the mo-
ment our flag was planted on the mountains of Ore.
gon, that moment there were thousands Of our CHI.
who would rise in their strength and resist tha
power, and stand for the defence Of our rights.
Some gentlemen in this House talked still about
the treaty, and about negotiation. What did ouI
Secretary say for himself; Mr.. Med. here read an
extract from the closing correspondence of Mr.
Buchanan with Mr.. Pakenham. Now, he submit
ted has not the President Of the United States done
all he do for the purpose of peacefully settling
this question: Had not the course pursued by the
agent of Great Britain here--who undoubtedly rep
resented her trulyshown that nothing less than the
| whole territory would answer her purpose' Were
| they here to recommend to the President Of the
| United States to make further offer of territory
No; all had been done upon the subject that ough
TO be done; and, one of the humble representa-
,ives Of the people Of the great West on this floor
he raised his hand in the presence of Almighty
God, protesting against any further offers on tn,
part Of this government.
| There was another very important question which
might arise in reference TO this negotiation befort
4