The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-14

aot plain mai 4 you'd ksss ssasd uAassI couid
there be doubt aboUi u she tells ~ hersrlf TIA
shs acquired thai nrbi rom spsia u~dsr thsi con
yention; she makes kn0wu hsrsth uh-i shs shan
doned her Own claims and plAcsd hsf rsi'anos upor
that and the Aypothesis y thai lhrossshah snsndsd
stipulation, shs put 4 N spaaS poSss y ,srnnsis
that right, when the ROtscs sh0ald have eesn Kisen
and ths Tune should have expired v - eisas thal
under such stAis q hcuI, 0ssai briaains frht q
JOINT occupancy would hate been Al a. end
Well, the S4se sSppo,sd = he ssry osss &c
have now 10 do sab, The Unlisd si@ass having
acquired SPANS rights, held thoas rshis, and rep
resented ard was bound by al thlags thai par
tanned 10 them. II the convention o. Nooika ~as
N force, she stood Shsr sG.sin siSod, sna 0,sai
Britain bore 70 her The same reiatiosa, snd S~sd
her, and claimed from hsf the hks obi-ations Thee
Great Britain and the Unitsd Siaiss. bang ne Gas
parties 10 the convention representing al he ngk.
and interests erhLtaesd IN Il, siP@lais4 Sith saah
other IN the London oonNsuiioh u isRi, - hey
had perfeot right % do that ssihsf Iiighi psi an
end TO the right Of ls,bt oosup4nsg " gitiag ths
other twelve month"; s0tios hsrsof iisnss. uhsa
such notice shall have been gissn, and ths tins
shall have run out, what St iolio~, ~hai ca iai-
low but that the right of oini OSoaPAncy uhl b 81
an end
To this il may, perhaps, bs Tspisd that Ihs sosssa.
uon Of 1927 provided that nothing oontaiasd ths
convention, &c, shall be o0astFoed - inpaf
Of the contracting psrties may have 10 any pau -
the country westward Of the Sioay oT Roesy s.sgE-
slns." Very well; but what assotpisSa u sl.ias'
were those which were not 10 10 impaired aAsci-
ed by the abrogaion Of the convention Why 10.
yond doubt, such only extended 10 tas, s,sass.
ship, or property Not assuredly 10 such rsacssd
no further than 10 q risA u joial H@. That was a
right derived from the eOaVend0n tself, snd ~as the
only right thereby conferred or acquired, AID 70
say that such right would survive the shreKsiiea
Of the convention, would he an absuTdity in lsfms
and convert the right 10 sbrogaie, followed by the
exercise Of that right in the very mode prescn.sd
by the convention ITSELF into the adverse T,rht Of
the convention. In truth, the stipula.
ton could have amounted 10 nothing less or Othsi
than this that where the convention vas asnuled
neither party could claim right Of use In the tern.
tory, by piTus o. The others consent because the Abro-
CATION Of the convention would take that consent
away; and theneeforward, therefore, each party
must stand upon its own substantive and independ-
ent rights. To stIpulae by solemn convention, that
either party thereto, in mode therein prescrtbed
may terminate the right Of Joint Use IL had created,
and then TO maintain that such termination reuits
he nations back to the Nootks, or some other con.
Venuon, which retains in force that very right Of
olnt use thus at end Is TO MAINTAIN that the last
never had any force al ALL aud that the
parues though possessed Of all po vers OF
;ssson, or Of abandonment OF their territorial rights
IF that very right Of joint use, which they had mu-
ually covenanted should cease
The Nootka convention did indeed provide for
he restitution To British subjects Of all that had
been taken from them in the aggressive affair which
gave rise to the convention, but II conferred no con-
inuous trseiory right whatever, save only right
II IoInt use. Through SPANS cessIon IN 1919 the
United Ststes and Great Britain became the sole par
les to that conventions and from the very necessity
't things, the sole right which either possessed
inder 1t right Of JOINT use. Now, these
wo parties, thus seized of an equal and common
1ght, but having together the whole right con.
erred by the Nootka convention, and that whole
light consisting of, and restricted TO, right Of
ONT use, enter INTO new convention al London
n 1897 and though indefinitely continuing the Joint
Use, yet vestng IN each other the important discre
ION TO terminate 1t forever by giving the other par.
y twelve months notice of the purpose TO do so.
Should either party, then, give the other that NOTICE.
AN anything be surer, than that the Nootka con-
'ention, or that which is identical with it, the right
IF JOINT use, will be thereby brought to end,
soon as the time elapses'
Ii this be a sound view of the matter, its import-
,nce, and its consequences can hardly be overesti-
mated for if the United States shall give "th, mo-
ice, what will have become of Great Britain's
tights in Oregon, when the time shall have ex-
bred She cannot fall back upon the Nootka
convention, for that conferred upon her nothing
n us power to put an end to that right, and
/ has been done. Her Anglo-Spanish rights are
zone rretrievably; and she will have nothing left
% sustain her in the controversy, but her own
discoveries and explorations (tcithout sstiiements
which preceded the Nootka convention of 1880.
But she cannot these except under the sig
lifcant and enduring disadvantage of having aban-
Toned them as valueless half century ago. and ac-
,eped IN their stead right of occupancy UNI
Ter the more ancient and authentic title Of Spain
That more ancient and authentic title has become
wholly and lndefeasibly ours; and Great Britain =
ast vestlge OF counter interest, under the opera
ion of 'the notice." must soen revert to IT, If she
iocs not find out, within the compass of another
year, that she dealt down mortal blow upon her
tights in Oregon by accedng to the conventions if
,hc does not rue to the her fatal ackno wledg-
nents, that all her rights in Oregon were "fxed
md defined by the convention Of Nootka," and as
hus "fxed and defined )" were "iin,iied to a right
If joint occupancy" then will she have proved her
'elf nvulnerabe to error, and all reasoning must
seem fallacy, and prediction an imposture, when
applied to her fortunes or her fate!
vi. Mr.. PAKENHAM's PROPOSALS TO ARBITRATE
THE OREGON CONTROVERSY.
The relative claims of the United States and
Great Britain, being such as they have been
represented to be in this and the two preceding
numbers Mr.. Pakenham proposed to Mr. Buch-
,nan, (under instructions from the British govern
nent,) in his note Of the 9th of December last to
adjust these claims Soy referring the ,ohole question Of
IN EQUITABLE DIVISION ofhat territory TO the arbitra-
ion Of some friendly sovereign state" He introdu-
;es his proposal with so much tact and skill, and
n terms so imposing, that not versed in the past
history of the negotiation, cognisant of the sta
US Of existing issues, might well have supposed that
he offer contained something beyond mere Justice
md rendered something little short of boon, as an
nducement to settlement, upon the terms of peace.
says:
"The government of the United States will see in
he proposal which the undersigned is thus instructed
o make proof Of the confidence of III. British gop-
rnent in the justice of their opn claim They will also
zee in it a proofof the readiness of the British
government TO incur the risk Of great sacrifice for
he preservation Of peace and Of their friendly rela
ions to the United States 1t is made in spirit Of
moderation and fairness, of which the world will
Judge"
Well this mode Of stating things is quite in the
way of the world, and doubtless all fair, and not to
De complained of; still Mr. Pakenham could hardly
all to see, that in asking to acccde to his propo
val, ne was asking us equally to incur all "the risk
Of great sacrifice" which Great Britain was
supposed to incur; and yet he contrives to appro-
pirate to her all "the moderation and fairness" which
,Ouu -. tad