The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-23
THE "NoTIcE" IN THE SENATE.

THE "NoTICE" IN THE SENATE.
A CAREFUL consideration Of the news by the
last arrival has impressed us anew and more deeply
with the importanee-the vital importaneo-of
prompt and firm action in the Senate in the adoption
Of the "notice," ,oiisOa the clause urging eOmprO-
mise.
IL 10 TO be regretted that strong vote ofConsress
approving the rejection Of arbitration by the Execu-
tive, could not have reached England by the same
ship which bore the intelligence that arbitration had
been declined. Statesmen in France, in England,
here and everywhere, have seen from the hrst that
an offer 10 arbitrate was in the nature OF the case
wholly inadmissible; but the people Of Eng
land need some positive assurance that the opln-
ion Of this country, in so far as the spirit
of party gives it free play, is almost unan-
inl0us in its approval Of the rejection OF that
mode Of procedure procedure to sniangl,, not TO
adjust the controversy. The noble vote Of the
House upon the "notiee"-a vote in every way
worthy Of the representatives Of America, and IN
no respect more admirable than in its forgetfulness
to very great extent of the dividing lines Of par
ty-that vote is, indeed, most influential sanction
fine course Of the President Still, If the voice Of
the Senate could at the same time have been heard
in unison with that OF the House, and speaking
with equal decision, our position would thereby
have been greatly strengthened
For, it is manifest enough now that the whole
elamor Of the most hostile portion OF the British
press-of that press which represents the opinion
Of the part Of the British public most reluctant to
recognise our rights in oregon-the whole cry OF
this part of the press centres on he division WAeA has
appeared is srpseisd 10 appear, IN our councils 1t
is this apparent schism among ourselves in matter
wholly national that now complexities the whole az
fair, and makes it more perilous.
Contrast with our divisions and hestations as to
our line of policy the entire unanimity OF the British
statesmen Of all parties this question from 1918 to
ls45 During that period the British title taking ad.
vantage Of circumstances they rose, placed itself
upon two or three different grounds. First, it was
an underlined claim to Oregon. Then, 1t became a
claim Of common occupation, with the sovereignty
in allegiance. Then, il became claim OF such oceu.
PATTON the character of which alleged to be ere
corded and ascertained in terms in the Nootka con-
venuon." And now, in the last negotiations, 1t Is
at once claim under the Nootka convention and a
claim by discovery-though one does not well sec
how discovery can ever be urged as founding only
right of common occupation.
Yet in all these shiftings of position the part Of
the British government, what party in England has
ever, in the slightest degree, manifested wish to
oppose that government in any Of its posdons' OPP
position and administration have been one man
there, on this question, from the first. And why
Most plainly because it was question OF British
claim conflicting with an American claim. We
say "most plainly" for this sole reason. Fol-
be it observed, the stand Of the British government
towards US in respect to compromise, has been
, from 1918 to lS45 most palpably and monstrously
unfair and unjust on the shoscing Of the British gov
eminent Itself.
/. This is an important point, and we pray atten
ton to it. Great Britain claims to have been act
, ing-as we certainly have been acting-in spiri
of compromise on the question from 1918 to lS45
During all that time Great Britain in her offer hal
not moved one inch from the north bank Of tn,
Columbia. During all that time we, claiming
right to the whole have offered to take to the 49tf
I parallel in compromise We'll, now in 1886, the ii
ties of the two countries remaining just the
before, Sir Robert Peel tells Parliament that he "can
not say" that our offer Of 49o ought to haze been re
fused.
Then it is plain, on Sir Roberts own showing
that he "cannot" assert the fairness and justice
the British offer to us from 1918 up to lS45. Dur
;, ing all that time we urging compromis
with might and main, and urging upon England tn
acceptance of an offer, which Che British minise
himself "cannot say ought to have been declined.
Still, during all that time, England persisted in de
e clinng it; nay, she did more; she declined Mr.
GaIatin's offer-an offer better for England tina,
Mr.. Polk's And-let US mark the fact and prof
. by the exampe--no man in England lifted up hi
voice to oppose the Of his government in it
d negotiations through all this time.
h Though the British government then cleurl,
unjust and unfair in the terms it offered us-thoug
it was then clearly in the ,orong, and that by tn
minister's own recent confession, and though a spir
of compromise was then the profession and relianc
Of the two nations, both remembering the then com
paratively recent war Of 1919, yet effort wa
ever made or thought Of, in Parliament or out o.
Parliament to shake the government in the indefen
J, sibe position it had taken. Neither the lords no
the commons ever sought to push the minister for
ward to more liberal compromise. Nethe
House Of Parliament ever voted, or proposed L
vote, that such compromise was earnestly desir
ed" And now--even now-when Sir Robert ''can
say" that he ought to have refused our last Of
fer-when, by consequence, he "cannot say" that tn
. British government has ever offered us as much
it ought to have offered by at least three degrees
8, even in this position Of the British government
upon the question, how is it in Parliament Why
y stout Joseph Hume, the pledged disciple Of frugal
ty-the Sir Francis GRIPPE, of British statesmen
the sworn foe of all army and navy estimates who's
whole political life has been dominated by tn
one idea of retrenchment--even he gets up just a
soon as Parliament comes together, to say in hi
place, that he chad hoped better things Of the Amer
cans but that if there is to be trouble in this bU
sness, he shall have great pleasure in voting wha
s. money the minister may please to ask for" An
this declaration is made on the pery night whe
the minister ayows his inability to say that the la