Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1846-04-09

whole or none Of Oregon" nov or never" "war
or no !" or whether we shall vet endeavOr to
affect amicable adjustment Of the controversy
and Of the same time maintain the peace aud the
honor of the country. The answer within aud
without this Hail. judging from recent Indications
would doubtless present some contrariety Of opn-
ion as to the most expedent Of action, while
all will agree with accord that the dictates of
wisdom and patriotism alike commend us to that
course OF action most consonant with the national
character aud dignity and which shall best subserye
TO vndicate and to maintain our national interest,
our national faith, our national honor, and il you
please, our national magnanimity.
Mr. Chairman, we have been frequently told that
negotiation is at an end that the door is closed
against all compromise, and cannot be re-opened
without national dshonor. Sir, | do not so under
stand it from the Executive message. | do not so
understand it from the Secretary of State. From
the very latest intelligence from England, we are
warranted in saying, its not so understood by the
official authorities OF that government. Who, indeed
from anything contained in the published official
documents upon this subject, is authorized to say.
that those to whom is especially committed the
charge of this question: regard the controversy as
having reached point at which the national honor
would be compromised by the consideration Of
further propositions of compromise by further ef
forts for an amicabe settlement by negotiation at
home or abroad, by treaty or by arbitrament; No
one, assume to say, would feel himself authorized
or justified in making such declaration. How
can it be so, while England manifests every dis
position on her part TO effect amcable ADJUST
ment! Indeed, we have it not only in flying ru-
mors about the town, but we have the authorita-
tive statement Of the chairman Of the Commit
tee on Foreign Affairs, (Mr C. j. Ingersoll,) made
but day or two since, upon this floor in answer to
interrogalory put to him by my honorable friend
from Tennessee, (Mr Gentry that a correspon-
dence had very recently taken place between the
official organs Of the two governments relative to
this question. can say, for one, sir, that was
very happy TO hear it.
Why, Mr. Chairman, let US ask ourselves in all
candor and soberness what is this controversy a.
bout What is the nature and character of il p
Does it involve any question Of honor that renders
provocatlon to arms, necessary to its vindicaon ?
Has our national flag been nsulted at home or a.
broad by sea or by land Have the rights Of our
citizens been anywhere violated, or has our soil
been anywhere wrongfuIly invaded Has Eng
land done anything, or proposed to do any
thing, incompatible with the spulations Of the
joint conventonl Nothing Of the king, sir. On
the contrary, England still manifests the strongest
desire to maintain and strengthen, and perpetuate
the friendly relations which subsist between /;
and not only so, but she seems cautiously 10 avoid
doing anything which would be likely to interrupt
those relations, the preservation of which is so
vitality important to her interest, as well as to our
own. What, then, | ask, again, s this controversy
about? | answer that il is nothing more nor less
than mere naked question of title or more prop
erly speaking, it is a mere question Of boundary
Such a controversy is Of all others, the most ap-
proprate to be setlled by negotiation by treaty
by reference 1t is disputed claim to piece of
a territory, the evidence OF title TO which is in its
very nature somewhat vague and inconcuslye, and
about which both parties may honestly differ in
regard to the strength and validity Of their respec-
tive claims. II is case wherein both parties may
relax somewhat from their extreme demands not
only without dishonor, but with signal credit, for
the sake of peace and harmony. The settlement
of such question most pre-eminenty belongs to
the statesman rather than to the soldier to the
councils of the cabinet, rather than to the wager
of battle Sir, il would shock the moral sense of
the civilized world that the two most enlightened
and Christian nations Of the earth should fail TO
effect peaceful and honorable settlement of such
controversy and should involve themselves in
war in consequence, the end of which and the
disasters of which man can foresee or conceive.
But it is urged as an objection TO negotiation,
or compromise in any way that we have clear
aud perfect title TO the whole OF Oregon. This
declaration is o0en made, | apprehend, without
much examination of this question, and with an
easy credulity, which is satisfied without further
investigation, to repeat, clear ncontestlble facts,
the unsupported assertions of political conclave
The stronger and clearer however, we can make
our title TO the whole Of Oregon appear so much
the better aud safer should have for the
decision Of an impartial aud competent tribunal
if the parties should not be able to agree upon
terms Of settlement between themselves. And sure
ly there could be little risk of our rights in submi,-
ting the question of our little to such a tribunal,
provided some Of these gentleman will shed upon
the board some of the light by which they clearly
see the perfection Of title the whole OF Ore
gon. Gentlemen have said, by way of illustration,
more remarkable for its extravaganza than any
analogy TO the question we are considering, that
we might as well yield TO the demands of England
any portion Of these United States Of the ground
on which this Capitol stands: and that we might
as well propose negotiation or reference in such
a case, as in the case Of Oregon l can hardly
think gentlemen serious in such comparison, OF
in supposing that there is any analogy, any
approximation 10 analogy in the two cases. In
the case Of Oregon, we have TO meet an adverse
claim, and one which has been asserted and insist
ed upon as long at least, as we have asserted any
claim; and one which we have so far respected as
to have made repeated propositions for the division
of the territory in dispute and so far as 70 have
admitted the adverse party TO the exercise and en-
joyment, in common with us, of equal rights ant
privileges there.
And this is not all. England has had actua
occupation of this territory or a part of it, mucl
longer and much larger portion of the time, thai
we have and under the convention of 1918 sht
claimed the right of settlement there and in 1872
we renewed the convention for an indefinite perot
of time, with the full knowledge that she claimed
such right of settlement. ! will not ask whether
under these circumstances we not estoppeI