Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1846-03-14


up about latitude 49o unless Of the interior branches
higher than that II this title be denied then other
title (and much better one) derived from the French
grant So far is manifest that could pretend claim
at all beyond latitude 4So.
In 73 the treaty Of Utrecht was made by TIE tenth
tcle Of which provided that France should restore
Great Britain the possession Of the OF Hudson Bay,
and that commssares should be appointed by each party to
determine the limits between the British possessions Hud
Bay and the possessions Of France, and in like
to another line separating the British and the French
colonies know that the present doctrine is that that line
established, but say that il does not lie in
mouth to deny its establishment. will read from
paper communicated to President Madison by Mr. Monroe
then Minister at the Court of ST. James, drawn up
pessy to justify Government in refusing 10 ratfy the fifth
article Of the treaty. Notwithstanding that treaty had been
signed under instructions which included the fifth article with
III. residue Of the treaty Mr. Monroe communicates 10 the
British Government the fact that thos instructions grant
ed at time when the Louisiana treaty had not been entered
into and consequently without any reference to that treaty.
But had short time afterwards got possession of Lou
sana, and before this fifth article ratified had under
that treaty right TO quite to the parallel Of 40 and he
places the express ground that the line Of 40 had been
established according to the tenth article of the treaty Of
Utrecht in l7l3. Hear what he says Mr. j. here quoted
from Mr.. Monroe. Here he tells the British Government
that commssaes had established the line according that
treaty. and when the boundary reached the parallel Of 49,
weswardy along that parallel indefinitely towards the
And om the earliest PERIOD l7l3, which
the date of the treaty of Utrecht that boundary line to
be found every map of authority from that day to this
said that tho modern doctrine broached believe, for the
first time by Mr.. Greenhow) is that that line in
fact run. Why, sir, it contemplated to be run
physically The treaty does not say that shall be the
treaty says that it shall be described and de-
scribed contend the authority of Mr.. Monroe, de-
rived from President Madison It described intended
to the 49th parallel Of latitude, ndenitelythat is,
TO the
make bold to say that at the period of the 9Th of Sep
tembcr, 1904 agent Of the had much
pretended 70 any claim part beyond this line Of A.
and so think is But, in the condition in which title
now stands, hold that necessity demands compromise
think there is Senator but admit that in absence Of
oil compromise is inevitable Spain has renquished all
her claim Russia claims nothing south Of $40 40 and
there is other Government which asserts title TO the
country between the parallels Of AZ and 81 but England and
the United States.
How should have settle this if a question
After have induced the subjects Of Great Britain to come
INTO the country and hold in with ourselves under
the treaty of 1918; and after have renewed that treaty
1927 leaving the question Of sovereignty undecided and
ser have permitted and invited England to extend her
laws over them we to extend what does
panmiy and real honor require at hands Obviously
fair and honorable division of the territory And if this
be done by the adoption Of line peculiarly appropriate
constitute boundary then hold il proper, part, TO
fix on such line. Now, ask what is our boundary with
the English possessions east Of the Rocky Mountains The
parallel of 49, What is the most natural boundary for
adopt west Of those CONTAINS The parallel of 40 What
line established under the provisions Of the treaty Of
The parallel of 49, What is the line that should be adopt
ed looking the relative advantages Of both parties The
parallel of 40. And say that if this ques-
ton coming up for the first time before American Con-
gress. the national honor far from being violated by
the adoption of that boundary, could the contrary be
preserved by this only. Is it honorable in high
minded nation to tell the subjects Of another nation
~ with their laws to invite them and again to
tend their ssesons in the country and then, after have
got them in they ondiy believing that they to live
under the protection Of British law and British power say
10 these persons, Retire, go out Of the country
will extend you laws exclusively admit
TO the question of right that title by possession be
maintained by either party, and the treaty Of lSS which
provided for the Of the territory by both did
ai,ct the previous title Of either the contrary il con-
9ed an express provision that it should have such effect
ihipk nnsa b. ssiaas Ietiag thu rharncfsx at
ihf transaction, the in which originated and what
declared to be its purpose that is than right
the part of each Of the nations offer and accept
division &
has heretofore done imposes imperative duty settle
the controversy the parallel of 400 if be DONE In
1918 we proposed that line to Great Britain boundary
together with the free navigation Of the Columbia river
1924 proposed the line without the navigation Of the
river in 1926 the offer Of 1918 renewed. In ls43 UNI
der Mr. Tyler, when the attention of this Government was
again drawn TO the subject authority was given Minis
ter to the offers Of 1918 and 1885, both the line
and the river.
Such the condition Of the subject when Mr. Polk came
into the Presidential chair And what his opinion
said that IN judgment the previous conduct Of the Gov
eminent created moral obligation Of great binding force
any moral obligation possess accept the line Of 49o
If II can be obtained What says the President in his annual
message
In Difference owhat had been done by my predecessors
and especially in consideration that propositions of compromise
had been thrice made by Administrations adjust
The question on the parallel of ortyne degrees and
them yielding 10 Great Britain the free navigation Of the Column
ba and that the pending negotiation had been on
the basis of compromise deemed my duty not abruptly
2 break Z oil, Aproposltion was accordingly made,
The proposition thus offered and rejected repeated the offer
Of the parallel Of foynne degrees of north latitude which
had been made by two preceding Administrations &c
ad THIS been question: corning under discussion for the
1rs time, this proposition would have made The
and wholly nadmssble demands Of the British
government and the rejection OF the proposition
erenc alone to what had been done by my predecessors and
einphed obligation vch their seemed i,nDose afford
satisfactory evidence that compromise which the United
states ought TO accept can be effected"
Impose on whom On me, James K Polk No; i'm |
pose on the American naon OF which he the
preventative an obligation arising from the fact that four
eren OCCASIONS this offer had been authorized that the
honor OF the nation bound him it, He renews
accordingly the offer of 1924 that is the line of 40 but
With the exception Of the navigation Of the Columbia river
he same time giving England minor but substantial ad
'anages IN lieu oft The question propose the friends
y the President this floor (and il is very obvious one)
hs II the previous offers of this Government in sls 1924
S2d and their renewal in ls43 created implied obipa
ION on the President TO settle controversy the same
enns is mol that obligation imperative than ever
rom the c that the President himself has repeated that very
,crt g Who Is James X. Polk ~ question once ask
H. We all know who he is, though there who
10 not know what he s He the President OF the United
States He speaks for the whole country he is vested with
he authority speak, and his acs in the exercise Of that
authority binding the United States as the acts Of
my OF his predecessors they obligation ex-
,ress or implied just strong the of his predecessors