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

MENT IN 1915 As TO OREGON AkblTkAIfoN'
Il may be comfortable TO know that IL, as the In
telligeneer seems TO think our government has bro
ken the law of nations in recently declining 10 sub
nit the Oregon question TO arbitration, the offence
is Of venerable age, and can quote authoritative pre-
eedent for its justification.
In our article Of yesterday we cited partially, Mr.
Adsms's view, expressed early as 1918, Of the
unsuiableness of arbitration AZ method Of settling
territorial controversies between nations- 1--WE
indebted TO Judge Breese Of the senator's OF H.
Iinos, who, in his yesterdays speech the Oregon
question, introduced this seasonabe "Reminiscences
from the ith volume Of American State Papers
title, Foreign Reations.") That there may be
no possible mistake upon the subject, rsfer 10 1t
again. Il is due to this administration 20 make the
fact distinctly known, that in declining arbitration
at thus ate day on the question Of Oregon, our gov
eminent has not only shown due regard to the
facts and rights of the case, and 10 our national
duties and interests involved in il, but has the
same time followed out truly and carefully the an
esi aud established policy Of the .iusriean government
adopted ioi all due dsiiberaiion and upon rendered
reasons IN reference 10 this pery question Of Oregon
,ohsn first arose bsossn The hco government, IN 1878
Under date Of July %, 1918, Mr.. Adams, then
Secretary ofState, by direction Of President Monroe
addressed to Messrs. Gaatin and Rush, then our
ministers plonipoentiary at London, letter Of IN
strucons in relation to various important subjects
of negotiation with which they were charged.
Among these subjects was that Of our right in
Oregon.
In that letter from Mr. Adams occurs the fol-
lowing passage in reference to arbitration upon The
Oregon territory:
"The expedient itself OF submitting questions Of
territorial rights and boundaries in discussion be-
tween two nations to the decision Of third, was
unusual If not entirely new, and, should the con-
tingoncy occur, will probably encounter difficulties
of execution not foresoen at the time when the Sup
ulation was made of resorting to It, The subjects
in controversy of nature too intricate and COM
plicated recurring on the part of the arbitrator
patience Of investigation and research, historical,
political legal geographical, and astronomical, for
which il is Impossible to conceive that the sovereign
of great empire could personally bestow the
time"
This extract sufficiently ascertains the sense OF
the American government upon territorial arbi,ra-
ton in general, and Oregon arbitration in particular
even a, that early day. But the whole extent and
strength of the then American doctrine the sub
ect viii be yet clearly seen from brief state
ment of the circumstances in view of which it was
set forth. We make the statement on the author.
ity Of the same diplomatic correspondence from
which the above extract is taken.
After the ratification Of the treaty Of peace in
1876 certain slaves had been carried away from the
United States by British officers. Our government
claimed indemnity, and offered to submit its claim
TO the decision of friendly sovereign state,
England accepted this proposal; hut proposed to refer
it, in the first instance two commissioners, 10 whom
should be at the same time given authority to pro-
nounce upon our boundary pea from the Lake ofhs
Woods, and also upon our right in Oregon. These
commissioners were to have powers similar to those
of the commissioners appointed under the several
articles of the treaty of Ghcnt and in case of dsa
greement between them, recourse was to be had to
the judgment of some friendly power.
This proposal to refer the territorial questions
with the slave indemnity question to commissioners,
in the first instance and them in case Of disagree
ment, to the arbitration of friendly power, was
the proposition which the American government
| considered inadrnissbie in 1918.
Our government at that time sought an arbitration
on the sape indemnify question; but declined arbitra.
ton the question Of territory, precisely and in terms
because such mode Of adjustment unsuitable to
such a question.