The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-30
THE DAILY UNION.


when entered into, was a substitute for war and
therefore, that it's repeal was war i'sen he WI
III denied this position and referred 10 the cireo
under which the treaty was entered INTO, ~
proof of his declaration. He also referred TO the
fact OF the notice by Russia to the governments OF
Great Britain and Of the United States Tor me
termination of similar convention entered intq IN
1924 apd that neither Of these sosefnu'enls haa
dreamed that the termination OF that Ieaty--though
cavalierly ehecied--was just cause OF offence
He also referred 10 the firm, uDhnehIng declaration
and vindication of our rights which had been made
by this government In the case OF the French treaty
IN the case OF our negotiations with Naples, made
from the deck Of our ship-of-war, ana IN our DIM
cutes with Spain; and he urged that similar
course ia this would terminate IN similar sue
cesstul issue, and that there would be no war But
how changed was now the spirit OF our drsamf The
question was now with our ancient enemy, and We
were continually reminded that we dare not pro-
claim our acknowledged rights, The power Of our
enemy was megnifed, pieans were sung TO British
prowess and TO British glory and the weakness OF
our own country was exhibited in most alarming
terms. He knew not whether the gentleman from
Alabama, who had led of in his predictions against
the success Of his country IN war, prophesying
defeat and dishonor 10 American arms 10 Just
cause, had here made his first essay IN the art Of
vabcInation but he had, at least, lily exercised his
prophetic powers in depicting the future dishonor
Of the arms Of his native land But he believed that
not only in Alabama, but in Georgia, and even IN
South Carolina the masses OF the people were right
ON this Oregon question There was no distinction
between the people Of the West and the South on
this question. There might be a difference between
their politicians, but among the people, whenever
the integrity of the soil Of their native ant was the
point at issue, there could not he difference.
There distinction between great politicians,
southern in their principles and feelings-a distine-
ton between the politicians Of the South, and the
South.
They who advocated this resolution took the posi-
ton that wss the only and the best means Of avoid
ing the difficulties which were anticipated He refer
red 10 the favorable manner in which the declaration
had been received in Great Britain which was first
put forth by the present Executive, that the syren
song Of negotiation which had lulled our
judgments for the last thirty years had lost its pow
or, and that the question was now 10 be decided
whether we would abandon or maintain our rights;
and he read an extract from foreign journal on
this point. That was the first echo How was il
followed up Why, we found that, in the bitterest
anti American paper published beyond the ocean
in the London Times, the acknowledged organ OF
the British secretary for foreign aairsths inuma-
ton was followed up by a Recommendation to the
British government, 10 accept the proposition made
by Mr.. Galatin in 1896 and rejected by that gov
ernment as preliminary step towards the renewal
Of negotiaton5-a recommendation TO accept the
49h parallel or rather TO propose the 49th, and the
| free navigation of the Columbia river. This was
the first returning echo Of the position now assumed
by our government on this question. Did II look
like disposition 10 consider the passage OF this
| resolution as a declaration Of war;
He referred to, and commented upon, the incon-
sstency of the gentleman from Virginia, and Of
other gentlemen who had argued that the offence 70
Great Britain, If any offence was taken, would mol
arise from the giving Of the notice, but from the
measures which must follow the notice, and who
nevertheless turned round and told them in the nex
breath that they would go for the measures, while
they opposed the notice. Every gentleman who
had signi6cd his intention to vote against the notice
on this ground, nevertheless went for taking mil
itary possession Of this country.
He made passing alluson 10 the position o.
| Mr.. EWING, Of Tennessee, whom he understood al
holding that we had no title whatever on the north
west coast, and therefore il was not worth fighting
| for
Mr.. EWING explained, that he had considered
our title doubtful, and that he was proceeding Il
give his views on the law Of nations bearing on
this point, when he was interrupted by the expira
| ton of his hour
Mr.. HOGE continued and expressed his dissent
from the position Of Mr.. BEpIYGER, illustrated from
the habits and characteristic Of the American eagle
He REQUIRED to his argument that the giving III,
notice could not be considered a Of offence BY
the British government He said be differed ir
| opinion with gentlemen respecting this treaty. III,
looked not upon that treaty as a treaty Of acquisi
ton, but treaty of concession. We had gained
no rights and we had lost rights under that trea.
y. We yielded not one particle-nay in the nego
tiaton we refused yield one particle of the RICH
of sovereignty. We granted to Great Britain the
easement Of settling, Of trading of the using in
mon with US of our territory. We had the riQh
before the making Of the treaty TO build forts to
take possession--exclusive possesson-of the ter.
rltory; and we held all rights still, subject to
the right Of trade to the right Of navigation, and oil
settlement of those parts not already occupied. That
he conceived TO be the true construction of the trea
ty. That was its admitted construction in the nego-
! uation out of which it resulted 1t was stated by
Mr.. Gallatin in 1885, in one of his dispatches to
this government, that the British government did
not deny that the American government had the
right to build forts, and to do every act of owner.
ship short of the exclusive military possession of
the mouth of the Columbia river; and with or with
out this notice, we had the right to take all the
measures recommended by the President
But he was merely answering the assumptions Of
the opponents of this resolution; for they were no,
arguments. No one Of them had condescended to
give them any argument, any reason why the mere
passage Of these resolutions was a declaration of
war; and, in their Judgments they said there were
better means of securing this territory. The true
difference between gentlemen here was that they
were all for Oregon, until it became necessary to
take the first step necessary for securing it. This
was the amount of this great unanmity, which, il
was said had never been witnessed before in the
history Of this government. They were all entirely
unanimous until IL become necessary to strike sim
gle blow.
He characterized the position of Mr. YANcEr, thai
Great Britain only wanted this territory for purposes
of the fur trade, and with no view Of making per
manent settlements there, as the most extraordinary
position that had been taken in this most extraordi
nary debate. 1t seemed to be founded upon the
assumption to the same effect which had been pu
forth by senator from Massachusetts in the Senate
chamber. He looked on that proposition as nothing
more nor less than proposition to surrender the
territory north of the Columbia river, continue the
treaty ten years longer, and he looked on the re-
suit as inevitable; should not get the 1910, and
much less the $50 of the gentleman from Indiana,
or the ago Of the gentleman from Alabama, but We
should get what we had always repudiated--the
| line Of the Columbia river. Mr.. ii. read extracts
from the application of the Hudson Bay Company
for renewal of charter in 1887, and of the reply o.
the secretary for colonial affairs granting this re-
renewal and referred to the operations and design
of the Puget Sound Company, showing that tn,
design of Great Britain was TO make permanent
agricultural settlements in that TERRITORY; and could any
argument he asked, be stamped with greater, with