The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-02

braed message is repleie. And il the Times be
curious 10 ascertain the tone Of popular opinion in
tho United States, with respect to the position Of
Mr. Polk upon the Oregon affair, il may be assured
that never was President SO generally sustained
upon great public question ms MIR. Polk is now
upon thai Of Oregon. Come what may, and il
may, in peace or in war, by compromise or by the
unqualified assertion Of our whole territorial rights,
the feelings and opinions Of majority Of the peo-
pie OF this country reflected in tbs late message
the heart OF the papitates in every line writ
ten therein upon claim TO the Oregon territory
SIN spis (says the Times) Of the efforts which
have been made in the United States 10 disseminate
and accredit an exaggerated and one-sided view OF
the American claims beyond the Rocky mountains,
the pretensions Of the government are not unani-
mously upheld by the convictions OF the most en-
llghtened classes"
The enlightened classes" The party to which
this dsparsging distinction is meant to be applied
is not left for inference conjecture. il is stated
in subsequent remark pretty plainly, that to the
,chig party-which, in British appreciation, eompre
hends all of the talents Of the country-England
must look for satisfactory termination Of the Ore
gon controversy. And high hopes Of such finale
indulged upon the assumption that various wing
journals, enumerated and praised for an influence
which they do moi possess, openly opposing the
American view Of our claim. II remains To be seen,
from the course of the whig party, how far the an
ticpations OF the'rimes's to be con6rmed; but,
for our own parts, we firmly trust and honestly be-
Iieve that large and liberal portion of them will be
found raiying around the rights Of their country.
The bold and thrilling speech Of Mr. John O. Ad-
ans Of this day, in the House Of Representatives,
is one remarkable evidence Of this disposition. IL
commanded the most intense interest whilst It was
falling from the orators lips, and it is likely to stir
up profound attention in the public mind.
The Times, in a style and by process Of argu-
ment which nothing but an ignorance of the subject
as it has recently been eyscerated account for,
proceeds to give the law and equity Of the Oregon
case. What is stated by that paper does such vo-
lence to the historical truths which relate to the
claim TO Oregon, that now il would almost be su-
pererogatory labor to state its POSITIONS and then
follow them up, as we should, with the syllogisms
ofMr Calhoun, and the powerfully ampfed argu-
ment of Mr.. Buchanan.
1t is difficult to tell whether the "Times" is most
unfortunate in its facts or in its logic.
What, for example, is more unfounded than the
assertion Of the THINGS" that "it would have been
easy for the negotaors and ministers Of this country
(Engand) at former periods to have put forward a
for the establishment of the exclusive sovereignty
of England the whole country, founded on dis
eovery and occupation, and at least equal TO any
claim which American statesmen could maintain.
But nothing Of the kind has been done by us.
Throwing aside all the superior and earlier grounds
Of sovereignty which we might have urged, and dis
claiming that very sovereignty which we might have
asserted, we have taken our stand upon the treaty
Of 1870, and from first to las, we have demanded
and exercised no than the right of joint
pancy which that treaty secured to ourselves in
common with the spaniards." Now, have not the
British negotiaors frequently resorted to This species
of argument, of discovery and occupation' But
every attempt has been found unavailing. IL was
not because it easy for them to put toward this
argument, but because they found IL Difficult, to
maintain il. They have tried it from time TO time,
but it was never armor-proof Mr.. Pakenham has
again attempted it in his correspondence with Mr..
Buchanan; but the Secretary has again demolished
IL. The "London Times" in,imates that the ex-
pertinent has never been made; but what says Mr..
Buchanan in his last nnanswerable letter. He
proves, that it has been made, but virtually aban
doned-and that British diplomacy has been COM
PEELED to throw itself upon the Nootka convention;
"The undersigned had believed that ever since
1926 the Nootka convention has been regarded by
the British government their main, if not their
only reliance. The very nature and popularity OF
their claim identified it with the construction which
they have imposed upon this convention, and ne
cessarily exclude every other basis of title. What
but TO accord with this construction could have
caused Messrs Huskisson and Addington, the
British commissioners, in specifying their title on
the 10Th December, 1896, to declare that Great
Britain claims no exclusive sovereignty over any
portion Of that territory Her present claim, not
in respect to any part but to the whole, is limited
to a right of Joint occupancy in common with
other States leaving the right of exclusive donin-
ion in allegiance And again. by that conven-
lion (of Nootka) it was agreed that all parts of the
north western coast Of America, not already occu-
pied at that time by either of the contracting parties,
should thenceforward be equally open TO the sub
ects of both, for all purposes of commerce and set
Element; the sovereignty remaining in abeyance.'
But this subject we are not left to mere infer
ences, however clear. The British commissioners,
in their statement from which the undersigned has
just quoted, have virtually abandoned any other
title which Great Britain may have previously as
serted to the territory in dispute, and expressly de-
clare, that whatever that title may have BEEN how
ever either on the part of Great Britain or on the
part Of SPAIN prior to the convention of $780, IL
longer 10 be traced in pague narratives
Qfdscorerss, several Of them admHedto be typographical,
bi in The feri and siipuiaiions Of that conrenion u
SELF And again, IN summing up their whole case,
they say: Admitting that the United States have
acquired all the rights which Spain possessed up to
the treaty of Florida, either in virtue Of discovery,
Or is pretended in right ofLousiana, Great Brit
ain maintains that the nature and extent Of these
rights, well as Of the rights Of Great Britain, are
fixed and defined by the convention of Nootka,' &C.,
&c, &C." .. "
1t is not true, then, that Great Britain has not re-
sorted to the argument Of discovery and occupation,
though it would have appeared from some former
correspondence, that she was compelled to stand
upon the Nootka treaty Of 1880. 1t is true that
Mr.. Pakenham recently made one desperate at
tempt to try its virtues upon Mr.. Buchanan but at
least che will have to stand, more than ever, upon
that ground since the late correspondence has taken
place; bu, even that ground is every moment desert