The North-Carolina standard., 1846-03-25
SPEECH OF MGs. REID,
OF NORTH CAROLINA,

OF NORTH CAROLINA,
In the House of Representatives., FEB. 7, 1886
On the Resolution OF notice to Great Britain to
abrogate the convention of joint occupancy re.
lalive to the Oregon territory. ~
Mr. REID obtained the floor, and addressed the
committee as follows: ....
Mr.. CHAIRMAN: The importance of the ques
tion under consideration must plead my apology
for trespassng on the patience OF this House,
evhiie | give some of the considerations which
will influence the vote intend 10 give. Gould L
cherish the vanity that could, at any tlme have
Enlightened this body any topic of Legislation
before it. such hope would be utterly vain on
This occasion, after the question before the House
has undergone so full and able discussion.
The question under consideration is, whether
it is proper, at this time, TO give the notice TO
Great Britain that the conventions Of 1918 and
1927. toucnTng Whit ts vTIrrsrli1 terrod the joint
occupancy by the two governments Of the Oregon
territory, should terminate at The expiration oil
twelve months. l believe that we have a good
title to Oregon We have acquired title TO ii by
settlement and discovery; and If anything was
wanted to make it complete, that was supplied by
the acquisition Of the claims of France and Spain,
But did not rise to discuss the title at this lime
that task has already been performed with an
ability which has satisfied the country. L must
confess that | was astonished TO hear the gentle
sman from Kentucky [Mr. DaVisl take the ground
THAT the constitution had transferred the power oil
giving such notice TO the President Of the United
A States; and that the executive had endeavorcd TO
avoid that responsibility by throwing 1t on the
legislative department of this government Sure
" The gentleman did not listen to the able speech
i of the gentleman from Ohio, tMr. Thurman.l
. What is a treaty2 1t is the supreme law of the
land. and can only be nbrogated by an act of Con-
gress, or bV another treaty made in conformity to
2 the constitution. And the gentleman from
Kentucky desire that the President shall take into
his own hands the prerogatiVe of abrogallng a
supreme law of the land? If the Executive
himself should claim such a power, how would
the crv of usurpation ring from one end OF the
country to the olhcr2 He would be charged
with an attempt to violate the constitution, and
seize upon despotic power. The whole country
] would condemn snch a course, and fancy that
even the gentleman from Kentncky, and his polit-
icaI friends, would raise the cry of nsurpatIon !!
usurpation! If the gentleman thinks that the
notice is war measure, and equivalent to dec
Iaraton of war, as have insisted, then sure
y he will not assert that the President has power
to give it without the Legislative action of this
government. The gentleman thought proper to
deprecate the idea of connecting this question with
the party politics of the day; but he departed
from this course by heapng partisan abuse upon
the President, and charging on him design OF
involving the country in war without consult
ing its welfare.
Does the gentleman believe that the interests
of the country required the President to make
the British government more liberal offer than
he did if not, then, how could he charge the
President with attempt to plunge the country
into an unj lust and unnecessary war? For my
SELF I believe that offer was too liberal bat we
have been informed that it was refused, and with
drawn and our title asserted to the whole Of Ore
eon Some Of the genllcman's political friends
say that "the President cannot be kicked into a
war; while the gentleman himself insists that
the President is too anxious for war. Whe-
ther the gentleman has met this question in the
elevated spirit of a statesman, l leave TO this
House and TO the country to Judge.
know not, sir, whether the giving of this no.
tce will produce war l am sure that it will not
be Just cause of war but deny that it is war
measure. 1t ought not to be so considered here,
for it is not so regarded even in Great Britain.
The giving the notice is provided for in the con.
vention of 1927 it is peaceable in its character
and docs not prevent negotiation; but still so fruit
ful are the imaginations of some gentlemen thai
they cannot speak Of it in any other light than
as a war measure. The friends of this measure
have not advocated it as measure; it has
only been so characterized by those who oppose
it.
In giving the notice, the only legitimate inqu
ry for an American statesman is, whether this
question ought to be settled as early as practica
BILE, or delayed for an indefinite period of time
The convictions of my mind are decidedly in ia
vor of the former course. Let US examine this
point For the purpose of postponing the adjust
ment of the Oregon dispute, it was agreed in the
third article of the convention between the United
States and Great Britain, signed October 20, 1918
that
"Any country that may be claimed by either
party on the northwest coast of America westward
Of the Stony mountains, (now called Rocky noun,
talns) shall, together with its harbors, bays, and
creeks and the navigation of all rivers within the
same, be free and open for the term of ten years
from the date of the signature OF the present con-
vention to the vessels, citizens, and subjects OF
the two powers il being well understood that this
agreement is not TO be construed to the prejudice
OF any claim which either of the two high contract
ing parties may have to any part of said country
shall it be taken to affect the claims of any
other power or State to any part Of said country
the only object of the high contracting parties, II