The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-15

right from discovery, if she has followed up these
explorations by settlement. But did she do ~ Not
at all. She made no settlements, but only followed
out the Spanish discovery by more minute inyes'
tiguton, and survey OF the coasts and nlets This,
insist could not abrogate tho previous claims Of
/ Spain, from discovery Spain never abandoned that
claim; she had the nchoate right from discovery,
and might at any time complete that right by actual
settlement, but neither she nor Great Britain did
this. save that Spain had a small settlement at
Nootka, and occupied it. Thus Great Britain en-
deavored take from her, but the Spanish governor
bravely resisted and successfully repellsd her at
tack What happened after thiA Great Britain
demanded satisfaction from Spain for the insult TO
her flag but the result was that Spain never dad re-
cognise any pre-existing right on the part OF Sssai
Britain TO territory on the northwest coast. Nor
did any other nation recognise il. The Nootks
convention was a concession made by sovereign
power, having a right 10 the whole coast in which
she permitted Great Britain TO come there and
trade and fish. This was the whole amount Of that
treaty aver, therefore, that in 1880 Great Britain
Oregon. IL she put her pvctensen on the right OF
discovery, Spain had discovered the country before
her II she put Il on the fact OF settlement shs had
made no settlement, bot Spain he'd q Nootka.
i Under whs circumstances were that convention
made Freely, or by coercion' IL was obtained al
the lannon's mouth. She obtained concession
from Spain in way she never Will obtain any from
the United States; for sure | that there 10 no
senator here who will not say that he would sooner
draw the sword, and throw away the scabbard
than think for one moment, Of yielding up nights
at the mouth Of the British cannon, as was tamely
done by the government OF Spain. have not ye,
heard any attempt, 10 this debate, to give a con-
suuetion Of the grounds Of that treaty. have care
fully examined its terms, and have placed my own
construction upon them. may be in error, but ]
have been unable 10 discover IN what respect. IL ]
am right, then say that the production Of that con-
Venton by the British negotators was suicidal act
say that Great Britain has thereby placed herself
in position where she has defeated every claim she
ever could have had; and infer this from taking in
Iconnexion the convention of Nootka between Eng
land and Spain with the convention OF 1927, between
England and the United States. The whole object
, OF Great Britain was to do away the claim set up
by Spain her grant from the Pope. However
such grant may now be ridiculed the title derived
from il was al that time good and yaid-never dis
puted for more than two hundred years; which cir
cumstance was, Of itself, sufficient TO make the title
good let its origin be what il might The third arti-
Gle of the Nootka convention is in these words
"AAr In order to strengthen the bonds Of friendship
ierstsnding between the two contracting parties. Il
agreed that their respective subjects shall not be disturbed
RE. in the Pacific ocean or in The south seas or in landing
the coasts Of those IN places not already occupied
for the purpose carrying their with hs
ves Of country OF making settlements there the
hole subject nevertheless 70 the restrictions specified In
the three following srticles g."
Il Now what the object in agreeing TO this arti-
cle' Spain had bad possession Of the country for
two three centuries and there was then contro-
yersy between the two nations, arising from the faer
, that England had molested her in this possession
SPAIN in this article, says that English subjects
might come there for purposes Of hunting, fish
ing, and trade, and might make settlements; but
the settlements referred to- are obviously such
might be necessary to further these objects, and
none other To take the word "settlemens' as here
y used in It's ordinary and general acceptaion, would
W l. ~ - al. 81. L..
is my construction Of it, | apprehend that treaties
y between nations to be interpreted by the rules
Of common sense 1t is then added that all the pro-
visions in this article are TO be held subject to the
restrictions contained in the three following articles
" yiz 4th, 5th and 9th Now, il we look at the 5th
article we Ahal that these settlements are those
" subjected TO the restriction, that they must be north
: "of places already occupied by Spain" Spain then
,, occupied Nootks, and all British settlements are
= here confined TO the coast above Nootka. But for
this Great Britain might have claimed the right Of
making settlements AZ far south as Mexico, pro
o vided she could have found one vacant spot on all
hat coast. This say, isa lawyers construction
l. Of this instrument. The 5th article is in these
: words:
= Art s. A, well in the places which to be restored &c
other parts OF the northwestern North America
Of the Islands adjacent sitste to The north 81 the parts
subjects either Of the powers shall have made settle
since the month Of April, i7sa or shall hereste
and shall carry their trade without any disturbance
T. molestation"
% Now where was the most nertherly point occu
J. pied by SPAIN 1t was unquesGonably at Nootka
for when Vancouver came back he found at tina
Is place ten houses in the possession Of Spanish occu
Of pants He very modestly claimed the whole a,
a belonging to Great Britain but the Spanish com
% mandant utterly repudated any such claim, and of
fared TO restore him little spot the beach
% friendly Cove, (about quarter Of an acre,) wher
lie Meares had erected two little ,huts. Vancouve
re contended that the most northerly settlement o
c Spain was far below at the bay Of San Francisco
but the fact was the reverse 1t was at Nootka; ant
lie that settlement was never restored. Although Grea
er Britain prepared an armament which cost her ffteer
al millions of dollars, she got it back from Spain
a. If it surrendered to her, the proof OF suci
surrender would have been in her archives and sh
~ could have produced il; but this she never did, AM
's he affair was suffered drop Nor is this surpr
er sing The reason for it is plain and obvious Eng
and became involved in the wars Of the French rev
OF olution, and she actually forgot Nootka and tn
vi Nootka convention for thirty four years, until re
We minded Of it by Mr. Rush in 1924.
ne have made the assertion that the intentions o
TO the parties are to be gathered from the nsrumen
rt nse-from fair construction Of its terms; but tina
position may be strengthened by the cotemporane
rs Gus position by the parties. We can show tina
the British Parliament itself gave to the treaty thi
,u construction. In the debates in the British Para
an nent we find this convention spoken of as unwoI
IN thy Of England, and in fact, literally sneered
IN This is matter of history; and is it to be suppose
es that had the statesmen OF that Tune any nouon
3D. The value to them of that convention, which is
me attached to it, they would have allowed the repre-
as sensations which made in Parliament TO &
~, forth to the world uncontradcted lcannot magn
such thing. 1t is incomprehensible, and no ma
can believe it. Let me refer to this matter for
~ moment. The Duke ofMontrose, in the House
~. Lords, on the occasion Of vote Of thanks beir
proposed to the king for the negotiation Of the col
I'd vention, says:
m 1--WE are not only restored to Nooka but may par
nate in northern settlement II we should had at al
~ time that a northern situation would be preisrab
Tor the carrying Of the Hisfer
we coi 20, p. 93A
ar. This is the language Of an individual who was
.e' favor ofthe government: and, from what he says
ef IS clear he did not believe word Of the sentimen
on now advanced by the British minister Aner 'ool
rsp ing well into the matter, after consulting all source
ia no nil that could be said in relation to the claims
Great Britain, he contents himself with saying tn