Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1846-02-20
THE JOINT OCCUPANCY CONVEX-
TION OF 1918.

g..
THE JOINT OCCUPANCY CONVEN.
T1ON OF 1918.
WHAT'S The real meaning Of the Conven-
ton now existing between Great Britain, and
the United States, in regard to The Oregon
Territory? Does 1t, as the enemies of the adj
ministration would have US believe, mean that
when This Convention was first made, the
United States acknow!edg ed by entering into
that Convention, that England had territorial
rights on the Pacific coast, and that the Uni
ted States is now estopped from denying the
fact before the world I Let MS see what the
language of that Convention is, and let US en-
deavor TO ascertain what it's real import is
The third article Of the Convention of 1918,
is couched in the following words:
at is agreed that any country that may be
claimed by either party on the northwest coast
of America. westward Of the Stony mountains
shall, together with its harbors, bays, and
creeks, and the navigation Of all rivers within
the same, be free and open for the term often
years from the date of The signature of the
present convention, to the vessels, citizens,
and subjects of the two powers; it being we'll
understood that this agreement is not to be
construed TO the prejudice of any claim which
either of the two high contracting parties
may have to any part of the said country, nor
shall it be taken to affect the claims of any
other power or state TO any part of the said
country; the only object of the high contract
ing parties in that fesp"ct being TO prevent
disputes and differences among themselves"
4 Now what is the realimport Of this article?
Would the seeker after truth, gather from it
that the United States has solemnIy acknowl-
edged IN the face of the Civilized world, that
England had right to any part of the soil of
that territory 1--WE certainly think not. Nor
dove see any thing in the language of this
article to- preclude either of the contracting
parties from recurring to whatever might have
been their title, prior to the year 1918. " 1t
being we'll understood" says the article, ''that
'his agreement is not TO be construed TO the
prejudice of any claim which either of the two
high contracting parties may have TO any part
Of the said county," Now, suppose the title
Of the United States TO the "whole" of this
territory was good, up to this period, what is
there in the words which We have just quoted,
TO initiate against her right at any. subsequent
period. to assert that title I Absolutely Moth
ing. On the contrary, these very words were
inscited ia the Convention as kind of a pro-
test against any future construction of this
kind. Was, or father is not, theereal meaning
and intent of this treaty, meEely-to give an
equal right toIthe citizens Of both countries, tt
trade, fish, hunt, &C., in the rivers and Wa
ters of this vas. territory, without declaring II
whom the eminent domain of the territory re
sided g Most certainly this is its plain an,
unsophisticated meaning. Is there any>colo
of admission in it, on the part of the U. States
that England had a right to one foot of tn
soii? THERE'S not. This Convention, not o
Joint occupation, as it is sometimes erroneous
~ termed, but of joint right Of trading, &c.
was, by its terms, to continue for ten years
In 1927, it was again renewed for term G
ten years, and lastly, in August, 1887, it wa
renewed for an indefinite period, but with
clause superadded, that either of the high cor
tracing parties might, at any time, annul an
ab'ogate it, by giving to the other twelv
aBcnths notice. Well, now, in 1916, til
United States being clearly convinced tn;
her title to the whole of the territory is III
best in the world-thas it is perfectly goot
and in entering into the Conventions to whic
we have alluded, she did nothing to prelude
that title, aud moreover becoming alien TO IL
fact that Gteat Frftsin, under cover Of the
toresaid Convel. .>s, has been for years, al