The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-06-02

Mr.. Adams, 10 a letter to Baron Tuyl, dated May
7, 1928, speaks Of the "rights and interests which
have been brought into collision upon the north,osa
coast .....
In the instructions from Mr.. Adams to Mr.. Mid.
dleton dated 23d July 1923, he describes the coun.
try as the northwest coast He says:
"a Russian charter gave the American company the
norVsst coast Of America from IS degrees to Behring's
straits" .~....
He further says in u letter to Mr.. Middleton;
"You authorized to propose article Of the same
between the United states Great Britain, and
Russia"
He says, in the same letter to Mr. Rush:
III the British Northwest ami Hudsons Bay Company
The aaSsry Review above cited The third article Of the
convention Of the 2oth October 1878 applicable to them
Mr. Middleton authorized TO propose article OF similar
import to be inserted in joint convention between the
United states Great Britain and Russia for term Of Ten
years from lis signature You authorized TO make the
proposal to tbs British government and with view
10 draw definite line Of demarc4ton for the future 10
,puae that settlement sha hereafter be made the
aoihwsH cast any OF the Islands adjoining by Rus
sian subjects south Of latitude 90 deg by citizens OF the
United States north Of latitude 81 deg by British sub
jectS eithsr south Of 81 deg or north OF 50 deg"
"For il shoWed, - says the honorable senator from
Missouri, in speech in 1912, shat the British had
90 rights the northeast coast" cit was not until
we discovered the Columbia that she renewed hei
claim TO any territory on the northwest coast" "ouT
title is good against England throughout the coast,
SC.
This language ia conclusive. 1t is obvious that
the whole nOrtiOssi coast Oregon, is referred to;
and the parties claiming IL are recognised as the
United States, Great Britain, and Russia diyis
ion Of their respective pretensions Is proposed by
east and west lines, thus separating the region into
three districts, lying respectively north or south OF
one another. There is difference in the deserip'
ton Of their claims. lpsuar or continental they
all the in their eastern extension.
These proofs that the descriptive appelaton
n0rt0sa coast applied generally TO the country
north Of California, and west of the Rocky noun
ains, might be multiplied almost indefinitely but II
is not necessary; the examples already given esab-
fishing the fact beyond controversy. II, therefore,
the honorable senator from Missouri seeks to con.
fine the epithet noTthioeS coast TO the region
within sight and sound of the surges Of the ocean,
he seeks construction and contraction, ineonsist
ent with the historical geography of the country,
well with the rights and intentions Of the par
ties Our nOrthlcea coast which is now our Oregon.
by the arrangement with Russia, cannot extend
north of $40 40, and her northeast coast cannot ex.
tend south Of that line. The longitudinal extent OF
either is question that does not concern the other
Our claim in that direction is from the Pacific TO the
Rocky mountains. Russia, since her treaty with
US, has entered into convention with England, by
which she restricts her claim TO extent of ten ma
rine leagues from the coast Before that she wal
free to carry her title to the Rocky mountains, the
eastern boundary Of the northeast This ssbse-
quent arrangement neither affects rights nor our
duties, and $40 40 is yet the barrier, beyond which
we cannot pass.
What would be the condition Of the parties il
Russia had formed no convention with England
What right should then have to say, that the
Russian pretensions do not extend the whole o
the country Of the northwest coast but limited tc
| ten marine leagues from it, None whatever. And
| how can subsequent convention between other par
ties regulate prior instrument, to which we were
party When we made arrangement with Rus
STA, country Of the northwest coast stretched to
| the Rocky mountains. We promised that power
that would not pass the parallel of $40 40 in our
northwarn progress. What rig hit have to say tina
Russia did not mean, by the same descriptive words
what we meant, or that that power did not assert
my claim over the country designated by them
The northwest coast for her. says the honorable
tor, is the islands adjacent to IL; while for us, it il
the whole country to the Rocky mountains Ou
duties are to be judged by exisnng circumstances
and not by subsequent arrangements between differ
ent parties. With the motives Of Russia, or tn,
consideration which England gave her for the ces
| sion, we have concern. Had the former power
coded her whole claim to the clatter, obligations
would have remained the same. The benefit being
transferred to England, instead Of being held by
Russia, $40 40 we said to Russia is our line in thu
country Of the northwest coast. And there hope 10
| shall be found.
But if the honorable senator from Missouri SHOULD
succeed in the establishment Of his position, that WI
are not bounded the north by this parallel Of 54H
40', do not that the lille band is in any wors
condition, the pretenslons Of the country at all di
minished--for the former seems to me intimatel,
connected with the latter; but quite the contrary
In that event, we should fall back upon our origna
Spanish title, and carry claim to the parallel o
| 6lo. Our arrangement with Russia was agree
ment to take less than the claim could rightfully
urge, as the grantees of the Spanish government.
The honorable senator, in the farther prosecution
of his argument, that we have claim to fifty fou
forty says that we offered that line to Russia rs he
southern boundary, and to England her northern
He then refers to- the proposition made by MI
Rush, who offered $40 northern boundary
and says we now seek to 60 jam up to $40 40, afte
the offer Of $40, which was refused by England.
! Why, sir, all this history of the negotiation
well known, and | must confess | do not see it
bearing upon the peculiar views presented by tn
senator. He is seeking to show the inconsstenc,
of the American government in urging a claim /
$40 4U, after having offered to accept the parable
of $40 as our northern boundary. But why selec
this offer for this purpose' We have made muc
more favorable one for England, which she ha
| more than once refused. We have offered ago ant
as late as the last season. If these changes ar
proofs of Inconsistency, the last being the greatest
furnishes the strongest evidence oft. repeat, sir
What new view is present by going back to tn
offer of Mr.. Rush in 1923, when that of Mr.. Buchs
nan in 1S45, yielded two degrees more of lat
| tude?
! But there was not the slightest inconsistency
them nor is there any now. This branch of tn
subject has been already fully debated, and hav
no disposition TO renew the discussion. Thcs
offers were all offers of compromise, made in
spirit of concession, and not the assertion of claim
and when rejected, the party making them was
full liberty to urge its whole title unembarrassed b
these efforts at Cancellation, and without being OF
4 noxious to the charge of Inconsistency. And thi
was recognised and distinctly stated to the BIRTHS
government by Mr. Gallatin ia 1897, who sale
that "his government did not hold itself boun
hereafter in consequence of any proposal which
had made for a line Of separation between tn
territories of the two nations beyond the Rock
mountains, but would consider itself at liberty
contend for the full extent of the claims Of III
United States" Here, sir, the American govern
ment, in 1927, maintained that the offers thus mad
and rejected did not reach to the extent Of the
full claims, but that being rejected, we were
liberty to fall back upon our original title,
7 though these attempts at compromise had not bee
= made. What right, then, has the honorable men
Der from Missouri TO charge the American govern