The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-23

OF the territory the question very properly presents
ITSELF how far the title Of the United States extends
IL 10 4yO there let stop; if TO $40 40 there let US
go. Will go TO what honestly consider the extent
OF our title, but mt beyond it.
believe the resolution Of my colleague will pre-
vent an amicable adjustment; that it will prevent
further negotiations. In his notice he PROPOSES to
mark the boundary line, and to say to Great Brit.
ain that she mus, come to the line marked or fight
Such understand to be the effect of 1t, and she
= will doubtless so construe II. What, then, will
Great Britain do! What she do She has often re
fused to yield to 49o and we tell her she shall yield
TO il. am sure we will not differ about II refusal
lon our part TO fall lower down than that The diff
lculty with US IL, Will we, can we agree to Ago.
My object now is not TO show that 49o is or is not,
the true line but TO show that the effect Of such ac-
uon would be fight beyond all do ubt. Can Great
Britain negotiate any further with such a threat
hanging over hGIi Does any member Of this COM
mittee believe she woultR Under this state Of the
case would she not tell Us, and very properly tell
US, that she could not treat or negotiate further
while the threat remained unrescndedl | am satis-
fed that such would be the course Of our govern
ment under like circumstances; and therefore think
that war must he the consequence.
View with reference TO our own Executive
and it is no better. We say to him, in the first
resolution, that the Oregon difficulty is subeet Of
honorable assoeissss~ xssA essr-,vw4~e, ~rd shoufc
be Hustled and In the succeeding resolution Of
the same series we shut the door against all nego.
tations-we take 1t out Of his hands. How ean he
negotiate when thus compromised What is left
for him TO dO' | grant he could cause a note 10 be
written To Mr.. Pakenham, covering a copy Of the
Resolutions of Congress disclosing the Hhimatu OF
this government, Great Britain would say II cannot
aecede TO that propositions" and trere negotiations
must terminate, as the President can do no more.
England might propose TO give more Of the ter
ritory, even than f9o, if we would connect other
things with Il. She might want the use of some Of
the harbOTs IN certain contingencies south Of 49o;
and she might agree To yield more, Il we would give
her some specified commercial privileges. Indeed
there many other matters which might be con-
'nested with the Oregon controversy to induce a
more favorable termination Of It for US. ! do not
name these because think they should be used by
the President My object now il, TO show that the
resolution to which refer would cot of all negota-
ton; yet gentlemen who advocate II say they are
for adjusting the question by negotiation and com.
promise. We had quite wsll relieve our Execu-
tive entirely Of this whole subject, as TO go the
length proposed. Why not direct the clerk Of
the House to deliver TO the British minister a
certified COPY Of the resolutions Il would amount
TO the same thing in the emu, as though it were
done by the President, Secretary Of Stale.
| | have before remarked that could cOnnex-
ion between ts question Of notice and the title il
necessary to give the notice whether We have title
TO all to only part Of Oregon. This controversy
should be settled that the governments know the
extent Of their rights IL our title is good to only
part Of the territory, it is more important that
an adjustment should be had than If it were known
to be good 10 ALL for If our people go beyond the
true line 10 which title extends and make settle
ments we will never give them up, title tltle
In such case the people would MOI listen special
pleading. The time has passed when 1iis govern
me ut, uRder pny administration, will venture 10 sur
render up transfer its citizens to any other ma
uon.
Although |, is not my intention to discuss the Ii.
I Will mn hr n lyr eff 10 an mr.
gument of my colleague Mr.. DAkshS) upon the |
Nootka Sound convention between Great Britain |
and Spain of 1890, and the effect Of the Of
1896 between those nations upon the provisions Of
that treaty. He contended that by the treaty Of
1890 at Nootke Great Britain obtained tho right of
settlement which gave her interest in the soil |
and therefore could not he abrogated annuled, |
unless with her consent. He referred, In ustra- |
ton and support of his position, to the treaties by
which this government acquired Louisiana and
Florida, and demanded TO know whether war be!
tween the United States and France Spuin would
abrogate the treaties Of 1903 and 1919, and retrans
fer to those nations the territory which the Uni
ted States obtained from them. No could
hesitate to his question in the negative. do
not however, consider the at all analogous
Treaties contracts between nations and yet it
does follow that they all of the precise
character. They widely diferept-some
cutcd giving permanent, vested right, as IN the
purchase Of Louisiana and Florida; and Others exc
cutory; others, again, in the process Of being per-
formed, but never completed, and from their very
nature cannot he, because they are continuing
all reel proca commercial treaties where the con-
sideraton is permission the part Of each nation
that the other may do particular things, the perms-
sion Of the being the consideration for the per-
mission of the other In the cases Of the purchase
of Louisiana and Florida, the contract is executed;
the consideration has passed entire into the hands Of
the vento' and il is beyond our reach. We have
possession Of the territory, and have organized our
federal and State governments in it. War cannot,
therefore, abrogate rescind them 30 as to affect
our rights under them. We now have commercial
treaties with Great Britain-treaties of trade The
vessels of each nation enter the ports of the other
in pursuance Of treaty stpuations. But if we should
declare war against her. all of these stlpulatlons
would be abrogated, and the vessels Of neither could
enter the ports Of the other.
| come now to the treaty of Nootka sound, under
which these rights are claimed and In order to Oh
tain proper understanding Of its provisions as far
as they bear upon this point, so as to enable us to
determine to which class Of treaties 1t belongs,
will be necessary for me to read its third article
Anr B. In order strengthen the bonds of friendship
and to preserve in future perfect harmony and good
derstandng between the two contracting parties, it is
agreed that their respective subjects shall not be disturbed
molcsted either in navigating carrying on their fhe
ries in the cifc or South landing
OF those in places not already occupied
yes of the country oil making settlements there
whole subject rheles to the restrictions speched III
the three following articles"
this article. We will doubtless all agree that the
rights of navigating, fishing, and landing on the
coast for the purpose of carrying on commerce with
the natives of the country are commercial privileges
or falling within that Glass; and such would be
abroeated and annuIed by war between England
and Spain But connected with the right of landing
on the is also the right of making settlements
about which 80 much has been said And my pur-
pose is to show if can, that the right Of settlement
as given in that treaty is of character identical with
those which precedo it in the same article.
Under the third article read, British subjects
have the privilege of navigation, fishing, landing on
the coast not already occupied, for the purpose of
carrying on their commerce with the natives, or Of
making settlements there. 1t is conteDded that the
right of settlement carries with it the right of soil;
and that therefore, Great Britain under it had a
right even to plant colony there if she chose to
do so
beg to differ with those who hold that opinion.
consider that the entire grants Of that article Of the
treaty relate to the grand and leading object
which Great Britain had in view at that ume-fsh-