The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-18


author - treating Of the various modes OF adjusting
national eontroyerses--yiz by negotiation, media
non, Arbitration, 6e.--snd then says; ats
I'm order, now, 10 how and u what degree 4
nation Is 10 have recourse, and submit 10 these va,
rouS methods, and on which he ought to FIX, il /.
necessary hrst TO distinguish between the cases that
are evident and those that are doubtful Does il re-
late to right that is clear certain and
sovereign, II he has sufficient strength NAV boldly
pursue and defend IL without putting IL 10 A com.
promise. Shall he suffer to be contested and de-
oaied hing that manifestly belongs TO him. and
which Is disputed without the least shadow Of right
Much less uiH he submit Il 10 arbiiyqfion.p
Here Is an authority which would support opin-
IONS far more extreme than any here laid down:
"a soyereign"-if htsaseT convinced that bis right
rs clear, certain, and inconesabIe"-iS advised 10
boldly pursue and defend IT," TO the extremity of
war, IA he has sufficient strength without refer
enee at all 10 the opinions which the adversary soyer
eign may hold az to the nature and extent of that
right lie explicitly disallows In such case even
so harmless an expedient as negotiation, for he
ssys,a sovereign" should not suffer right OF that
description TO be even Contested and abatedn But
above all, he maintains that arbitration is not 10 be
thought OF IN such case. "MUcn LEssn (says
Ihe) will re SUBMIT TO ahBuRArI6yp
What u plainly mans own, he may surely re-
fuse to bring to question by subjcetng il to all arbi
!rsment Ia IN vain to tell him, that il il be plain
| ly his, he hazards nothing by the reference ri.
/
the awards Of arbitrator we'll as by other ways;
and when the thing he's been once done and nations
are parties tn it--be il rightly done or wronVIv
done--it IL at an end, and unless the claimant ma.
IONS mutually annul II, it stands a judgment
binding and lrreyoeabe. To all this il NAV be re-
piled, that one may not assume a title, and then
justly refuse reference, because he says he has IL
That Is very true, but what il be said il he pror,
title by all the demonstrations in the presence Of his
adversary, and before all mem May he not rightfully
e.. - a.. A =
examined, triumphandy disproyed and whom he
believes in his conscience TO be without anyi
IL Is proper 10 observe here, that matters appro-
prate for an arbltrament are those which, possess-
ing attributes IN common, still bear TO each other
the relations OF equivalent values: as where both
tteS are colorado, yet in conflict or, where both
titles are undoubted, and the issue is made on the
line ofparoni or, where rightful possession is
opposed to just title, and the issue is made upon
the r., minus of the possession, &c, &c. But surely
bare clalm-though perseyeringly asserted for any
number of ycars-Possesses no right Of reference on
the basis Of equivalent agains, claim Of equal dura
ZION, which has the support besides Of good title
five will suppose that Spain, possessing the oldest
and the best title TO Oregon, land il will lie shown
in due time from the most authentic concessions of
both powers, that the hypothesis approximates the
very truth rs il stands confessed upon the archives
Of both governments,) had passed the same by pub.
lie cession TO Great Britain and the United States
Jointly, and invested each with an undivided moi.ty
the whole and that either party should thereafter
desire to sever the joint interest, and the par
ties could not agreee upon a line of parti.
ton, nothing would have been fairer than Mr.
Pakenhnm's proposal TO submit the question OF
equitable partition or the territory 10 the mr.
bitrament Of third power. Butt so turned out
as history has made known-that the faeiurn of
Spein's eession took quite different direction
Owning the whole, she passed the whole and in
full sovereignty, not TO both Of the claimant now
ers but 10 one-not in moeties but in totalities-
not to Great Britain, but to the United States All
this is sure, and not in dispute This being the
real state Of the case and essentially variant from
the supposed, can il be fairly insisted that Mr.
Pakenham's proposal aptly applies to the one as
to the other; that in the absence OF such main equiv.
alents does not lose much of its fairness and all Of
its equality If SPANS title to Oregon constitutes |
il does--if Spain ceded to the United stare hv the
treaty Of Washington Of the 22d OF February, isis
her whole title thereto, she did--what is there
left Of Spain title upon which Great Britain can
Lase right Of arbitration, Or indeed any right at
alli As Spain possessed it in 1919, the title had !
all the attributes Of excusiveness which resulted !
from its oneness, s indivsibiy and its to,ality;
and as such, and without change, il passed to u.s.
It's all then, or nothing It's ours or it's no ones
It's "he phole none !"
Again The arbitraments Of nations embrace no. !
thing but the very points in dispute. A sovereign
cannot be expected to make reference of rights
which are not in conesation. Ii ought to be kept
in mind, then, that we have rights in Oregon that
are beyond dispute--rights, which-Great Britain |
specially recognises and admits In verify, she |
contests part Of our claim to Oregon except it's
erclusipsness. She comedies to us rights in every
portion Of the territory, up to the ultima thule
of $40 40; and her faithful envoy here will hardly
deny that the rights thus acknowledged reached to
at least an undivided moiety of the whole. This
being the status of our acknowledged title, how
could Great Britain ask us--or, if the forms of d.
plomacy allowed the question, is it conceivable that
she could have expected US to consent to subject
to an arbitrament the very rights she has repeat
eddy conceded to be ours without it Yet she has
asked it; and in doing in all Just mems estima.
ton, she must have thoroughly Invested her offers
Of every chance of, and all claim to, acceptance.
Now on the other hand, be it observed that Great
Britain is without any acknowledged rights in Ore
gon, save only right Of joint use, so long as the
convention OF 1877 shall remain i'll force. We deny,
and we have always denied, all other rights either
in severalty in jointure-her right to each and
every part and to the whole. She herself has been
guardedly shy and reserved in making known what
the rights she claimed in Oregon were--ther nature
or their measure-though always disavowing very
explicitly that they were exclusive. Even the bold
avowas of title contained in the inaugural of the 4th
Of March last failed to draw from the British pre-
mier any other specification of title than is contain
ed in the phrase, that 1--WE haze rights in Oregon "
And now, Mr.. Pakenham, in his very last note, (ofI
the 10th January, 1867 when reminded bv Mr.. |
most solemn form the title of the United States to
the ,ohole territory" far from putting forth similar
claim for Great Britain, controverts no portion of
ours save such may be in conflict with his stue-
ment that she had declared that she too had rights
in the Oregon territory, incompatible with the ercl,i
sire claim advanced by the United States"
1t comes to this, then that as to one undivided
moety Of the whole of Oregon, it is conceded to be
unquali6edly ours; and as to the other undivided
moety, Great Britain claims it hers, and we claim
- A nd hefha he H.. Iii |
show that our title is weaker the one moety than
to the other, is problem for her diplomatists and
casusts, and yet to be solved. Solve il they
may, however, still touches not title to one of
The undivided moietiea. That much is ours, and
that much is safe; that is, if British acknowledgment
and the disclaimer Of all other nations, can make il
There il no extravagance Of phrase, them in say
ing Of that much Of our title, that II is "cear and
unquestionable;" and nasmuch as both powers con
cur that far the ia stronger even than the one
cited from Yatte to which he denies right of
negotiation as well as Of arbitration. ..