The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-04

II
er asserteda pretensioni And yet the assumption
that the parallel of 40 degrees was establishes
| by the treaty Of Utrecht a. a line hetwee
France and England, in those unknown regions
necessarily involves these inconsistent conclusions
But besides If England, as a party 70 the treat,
of Utrecht, established this line running to th
western ocean as the northern boundary of Louisi
ana, what possible claim has she now south OF tina
linel The very fact Of her existing pretensions
however unfoundsd these may De, shows that sh'
considers herself party 10 such line Of division
Ii shows, in fact that line was run, FOR n ha'
been, the evidence Of IL would be IN tho Engish ar
chives, and, in truth, would be known 70 the wohC
without contradiction. The establishment OF boun
dairy between two great nations - no hidden fact
aud we may nov safely assume that the parallel o
49o never divided the Oregon territory and establish
es no barrier 70 the rights by which we claim II
The assertion was originally mere diessn, nov
shown TO be unfounded. 1910 uaJ sgL.e ,f--ssl o.
The senator from Maine has sdysrtsd likewise 70
the treaty OF 1853 as furnishing sddiuoasi sstimo
ny IN favor Of this hne. That treaty ui~sly pro
yides that the confines bsi,osen The British and Frenel
doainions shall be fired irrsposabIy by has draior
along The middle Qf the rpu hssssippi, from us soures
Sc. This Is the whole provision that bears npor
this subject, do not stop TO analyzs IT, Tha
cannot be necessary. IL il obvious that this arrange
ment merely established the Mississippi river as q
boundary between the two countries, leaving their
other claims precisely they formerly existed
And this too, was fifteen years before the voyage
Captain Cook, the commencement Of the British
title upon the northwest coast, Briefly, sir, there
are six reasons which prove that this parallel wal
never established under the treaty Of Utrecht, 30
far at least as regards Oregon. ...
/. II il not shown that any line was established
on the parallel Of 40 to the Pacific ocean.
If the fact be So the proper evidence 10 at Paris Of
London, and should be produced. ..
2 The country on the northwestern coast was
then unknown, and believe unclaimed; or, at any
rate no circumstances had arisen TO call in question
any claim to il.
g. The British negotiators in 1896, aud their min
lister here in 1884, fixed, in effect, upon the voyage
Of Captain Cook in l776 as the commencement o.
the British title in what is now called Oregon.
4. The treaty Of Utrecht provides for the estsb
Iishment Of line between the French and English
colonies, including the Hudson Bay Company
The British held nothing west Of that company's
possessions, which, by the charter, includes only
the Stands, countries, and territories on the waters
running into Hudsons bay,
5. If England established the line to the Pacific
ocean, she can have no claim south Of IL; and this
kind of argtmenii ad hOminepi, becomes conclusive
And, let me add, that owe this argument TO my
friend from Missouri, Mr. ArcHIsos,l to whose
remarks upon Oregon the Senate listened with prof
and pleasure some days since.
g. How could France and England claim the coun.
try to the Pacific, as to divide 1t between them in
1913, when, as late 1870, the British government
by the Nootka convention, expressly recognised the
Spanish title to that country, and claimed only the
use of It for its own subjects, IN common with those
Of Spain ..I '..g.n..
now ask, sir, what right has any American
statesman, or what right has any British Statesman
to contend that our claim, whatever it may be, il
not Just as good north ofths line as it is south of ID
When this question ia answered to my satisfaction
|, for one, will consent to stop there. But until
\ ~
can, to the Russian boundary IN
Now, Mr. President, II is the very ground as
sumed by the senator from North Caroline, and by
other senators, respecting this parallel Of 49o togo
Their with the course Of this discussion, which fur
nishes me with the most powerful argument against
the reference of this controversy TO arbitration.
have shown, trust, that there is such linz
Of demarcation established under the treaty oil
Utrecht, extending TO the Oregon territory and
the Misrepresentation, whence the opinion arose.
While such a conviction prevailed, il was fairly
and properly assumed by the government as the
northern boundary of the Oregon claim, before the
Florida treaty. Since that treaty | consider the
offers on our part as offers of Compromise not re-
cogntons of "a line, from the resumption Of neeo-
tations by Mr. Rush, who carried our title to S 10
to their abandonment in 1927 by M. Gallatin, who
finding a satisfactory adjustment impossible, with
drew the pending offer, and asserted that his gov
eminent "would consider itself liberty to contend
Statesn And for their full extent we do claim
And take the opportunity to tender my small tri-
butte Of appreciation the general conduct of these
negotiations by the American government, and
their commissioners, and especially to Mr.. Rush,
citizen as well known for his private worth
as for his high talents and great public ser
vices, and who seems to have been the first, ns
Mr.. Greenhow remarks, "to inquire carefully into
the facts of the case" .s.. ....
And it is not one of the least curious phases
of this controversy that down to this very day the
pretensions ofsIEngland are either wholly contra.
dictory. or shrouded in apparently studied oh.
scurty She asserts no exclusive claim anywhere
but an equal claim everywhere. .u4. ..
"A right of joint occupancy in the, Oregon terri
tory" says the British minister in his letter to Mr.
Calhoun, dated September IL, 1874, "of which
right she can be Invested with respect to any part OF
tha, territory, only by an equal partition of the
,phole bel,osen the parties" $685.. .... -
And yet, notwithstanding he refers to the iuhole
territory, STILL in the protocol of the conference at
Washington, dated September "a, 1874 he refused 10
enter into any discussion respecting the country north o.
400 because il understood by the British goperi-
meni to form the basis Of negotiation the part Of The
United STATES Thus, on the 18th Of September, re-
cognzing our right to an equal, undivided moety Of
Oregon, and two weeks after cooy claiming the
northern half of it, fact not to be called into
question, and then offering to discuss with us the
mutual claims Of the two countries to the southern
half .l.. glg.n..
Well, sir, Influenced by the motives I have stated
and by desire to terminate this tedious controver
sy, this parallel of ago. sometimes with, and some.
times without an accessory, has been four times Of
ered by to the British government, and four times
rejected, and once Indignantly SO; and three times
Withdrawn. Twice withdrawn in the very terms
once by Mr.. Gallatin, Nov Is, 1926, who withdrew
a proposition made by Mr.. Rush. and once during
the present administration; and once Withdrawn IN
effect, though without the Of that word by MIR
Gallatin, in 1927, who announced TO the British ne
gotiators ''tfat his government did not hold itse
bound hereafter, in consequence of any propose
which il had made for line of separation between
the territories of the two nations beyond the Rocky
mountains; but would consider itself at liberty &c
contend for the full extent of the claims Of the Uni
ted States" .... ... #...a....
The senator from Louisiana will perceive tina
he in error yesterday, when he said that no
offer Of compromise had ever been withdrawn
till the withdrawal made by the present administra
ton, unless such offer had been announced as ar
utmaum. But without recurring TO any authority
upon this subject, it is evident, that II nation Is
forever bound by an offer Of compromise, no pru'
dent nation would ever make such an offer. There
would be no reciprocity in such condition Of