The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-12

terminated IN the Nootka conVenuon'
Such are the undisputed facts. The right ofSpair
10 her vast political creations Of New Spain anc
New Mexico rested on discovery, conquest, anC
occupation or settlement. Her right to the unoecu
pied territory extending indefinitely to the north Of
these kingdoms, and including the present Oregon
up to $40 40, rested on contiguity-that is, as W,
have defined it before, the right aceruing to a ma
tion,- which has made settlements on previously
unoecupied territory, to claim as an appendage tc
these settlements, jurisdiction over the adjacent un.
occupied territory to greater or less extent in pro-
portion to the extent and importance of the settle
ments actually made.
The claim Of Spain to these regions, considered
as against the natives, had Of course no better foun
dation than actual force, has been remarked by
every one who has had occasion to express opin-
ION on the subject, and, among others, by Mira.
beau, in the National Assembly of France at the pc
rod OF the Nootks affair II is singular that Mr.
Riyes should quote this remark Of Mirabeau, APP
parently as if he thought that it had some applca.
ton to the point now in controversy between us
and Great Britain. This question, so far as the
original Spanish title is concerned is whether that
title was morally good against the narves-which
no one pretends-but whether it was and is valid
against other Christian nations, and particularly
Great Britain, on the principles usually acknowl-
edged and acted on throughout Christendom, as the
rule in reference TO this subject.
Mr. Buchanan asserts, in his correspondence
with Mr.. Pakenham, that the Spanish title, to the
extent just described, was never seriously ques-
toned" till the occurrence Of the Nootka affair Mr.
Gallstin considers this "the most vulnerable part
Of the secreary's argument" and proceeds to offer
some considerations in support Of different opin-
ion Mr.. Ryes, without adding anything to the
argument, lends ii the authority Of his name by
restating it in a more condensed form, and endors-
ing the conclusion.
With all the Difference that we feel for the author
lty Of these distinguished statesmen, we must say
that we have never in the Of our reading
sition assaied by a weaker objection than that
which Mr. Gallatin opposes to the remark Of Mr..
Buchanan quoted above. The only appearance
of answer to this "most vulnerable part
Of the secretary's answer" is, that "the early
charters Of the British monsrchs to the colonies
bordering on the Atlantic extended from TO sea,
from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, with the
single exception, which excluded from the grants
the places actually occupied by the subjects of any
Christian nation" 1t is true that looming down
to modern times he states that Great Britain con-
tested the exclusive claim Of Spain from the year
l77S, the date OF Cooks third voyage; and that
Russia and the United States have more recently
made settlements, or advanced claims, inconsistent
with the exclusive sovereignty Of Spain But it is
evident that these recent proceedings, which took
place either Immediately before subsequently to the
Nootka affair, do not interfere with Mr. Bucha nans
remark that, until the occurrence of that affair." the
Spanish title lad never been seriously questioned.
The only facts produced by Mr. Galatin in sup
port Of his objections are, therefore, the British
charters alluded to above.
Now, these charters do not directly deny the va
idity Of the Spanish title to the territory on the
northwest coast, and contain an express exception
in regard to lnnds already occupied or, in the lam
guage Of the Virginia charter, previously settled
by any Christian prince or State" But Spain, a
hundred and fifty years before these charters were
territory in question, as we have already shown, by
the usual means Of discovery, conquest occupation
or. settlement, and contguty. 1t is necessary,
therefore, in violation of the pain1st rules OF
rect reasoning, to assume the point in question, and
take for granted that the Spanish title thus esab-
shed is good for nothing, and considered
by the British sovercigns at the time Of granting
these charters, before they be made to take the
form even of an objection to Mr.. Buchanan's re-
mark.
But waving this diffculty-for the case is so
strong as to admit of almost any concession-and
supposng, for the sake Of the argument, what in
itself not improbable that the British soveregns, in
granting these charters did intend to dispute the va.
lidity of the Spanish ttle and grant to their sub
jects the whole breadth Of the continent from the
Atlantic to the Pacific oceans it is obvious that this
pretension, on their part, was too extravagant to
bear moments examination, or to be regarded
with propriety as serious one. England had not
at this time, foot of land, solitary subject, on
the whole North American continent, Her right
such as it waste grant charters for the founding Of
colonies rested on the fact that Sebastian Cabot,
Venetian, sailing in her service, had hundred and
fifty years before, discovered part Of the eastern
coast. During the intervening century and half
no attempt had been made to follow up this dscov.
cry by actual settlement. If this discovery could
be supposed, after so long lapse OF time, to
have any effect at all, the right resulting from
it would, Of course, be nothing more thar
that of founding settlements on the coast, and
claiming, appendage to them, REASONABLE.
portion fthe adjacent territory. The claim to gram
away whole continent, on which they had not ys
attempted settlement, upon the strength Of dis
covery Of a part Of the coast hundred and fit,
years before, is too preposerous for argument ant
it is rather remarkable that Messrs. Galatin ant
Rves should regard it "serious NATTER" at tn,
same time that they treat "absurd and ridiculous
the prctensons Spain supported as they by al
the usual grounds Of discovery, conquest, occupa
ton, and contiguity.
1t would seem, therefore, that Mr.. Buchanan, il
saying that the Spanish title had never been serious
ly questioned before the Nootka affair, though no
perhaps intending at the time TO allude