The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-26


1898 and here is the evidence Of Il 10 documents OF
unimpeachable authority. | read first from Mr..
Adams 10 MIR. Rush, July 22d, 1898; ....
Previous 10 the restoration u the settlement at the
no9h Of the Columbia river IN ISIS and again upon the
territorial government there some disposition was mani
ssted by SIR Charles Bsgot and Mn Canning minister at
WaAhnson) TO dispute the Tgb OF the United States TO
mat establishment and vague ntimeion given OF
ush claims on the northwest coast The restoration OF
ai, disposal Of Mr. Bagots obectiOns and Mi Canning
| In conversation"
Two dates and great fact are here mentioned,
with both OF which was contemporary, and, nv
writings OF the time will prove, not an inatienliye
observer. The nominal restoration of the Colum-
6Ia, which was, 10 fact, an empty ceremony, and
The non'execution OF the Client treaty, in favor OF
the West, as It had happened before in the non
execution Of treaties, which required British west.
ern posts TO be given up. That is one date The
introduction of DIR. Floyds Oregon bill in the
House OF Representatives,, in l620-2l is another Of
those dates and of which know something, The
great fact is, and my speech of 1924 will show that
knew something of that,is the vague intimation Of
British claims to the Columbia at that time, the
fusal OF the minister TO write them down, and their
utter and entire abandonment
This was done expressly by Mr.. Canning, the
prime minister OF Great Britain, TO Mr.. Rush, la
London, in 1928, Of which Mr. Rush's despatch OF
the 18th January, 1924, bears witness. Here il is
~ twas omission not TO have stated in my eon
nunlcauon Of the 9th instant what be the claims
Great Britain on the northwest coast OF America though
she Will claim, understand to point ards above
81 though how much above it am not able TO say
push claim to the whole d this space si,h saTasstss.s
a s.o Sn.ss ss yst 70 say but wait the more an ami
soufste disclosure OF her views"
Thus, ON THE 18TH DAT or JANUARY, IN rHE YEAE
ioz4, rHE PARALLEL or ToKrr.HsE WAS I'M
puRrHGsr SOUTH TO WHICH BRirIsH sisIsTEk
Ma. CANNING MINISTER oY HEAD, AND on TohrY
YEARS EXPERIENCE IN ruBLic ATyMKs--PRoPosEp
TO PUSH rHE BRIrIsH CLAIM.
Amer this authentic and express admission Of Mr.
Canning, the prime minister Of Great Britain in
1924 II Is hardly excusabe 10 have recourse TO sec
ondary OF inferior testimony, however persuasive
or convincing that testimony may be- But | have
stll piece OF British testimony In hand sufficiently
respectable to be quoted after Mr.. Canning and SUI
hclendy concident in time and terms to Identify the
minister's answer with public opinion at the time
thst the extent Of the British claims stated to Mr.
Rush in January, 1924, the opinion Of the pub
lie as well as Of the minister Il is found in the
London Quarterly Review, October number, 1922.
Il Is in discussing the boundaries OF New Caledo-
ola, for which he proposes the south the line OF
the lake Of the Woods to the sea;
Another river called the Caledonia rslers) holding
parallel course to the Tscoutehe Tssse Columbia as
to the the Admiralty lnst Vancouver In Iat
tuds as and forms natural boundary between the new
territory western Cslsdonia and that Of the United states
and falling In precisely with continued line with the
parallel with the lake Woods and leaving about two
iegrres Of latitude between Il and the Columbia"
So said the Quarterly Review in January 1922,
No. 70, article western Caledonia"
| sat out 10 establish, upon the admissions Of
Great Bntain herself, our right to the Columbia
riyer and its valley have done more. | have
abllshed her admission to the line Of 40, giving
three degrees the coast the valuable waters
about the Straits Of Fuca and Puget's Sound, and
the whole Olympic district, no part Of all which Is
IN the valley Of the Columbia.
n aee in he ftah
by authentic acts, and by the language Of Mr. Can
ming, admitted right to the river and valley Of
the Columbia; and, what was better, limited their
claim to 40. At the same time we that
government was offering 49; 30 that the two govern
nents Of accord, and the question is why they
did not agree. The documents furnish the answer
To this question: and strange answer it is. Moth
ing else than love Of partnerships, and desire to
90 into partnership with Russia and Great Britain
IN the use Of all the country beyond the Rocky
| mountains, each enjoying the use Of the whole in
common with the others, and the title to remain in
allegiance. The Emperor Of Russia, like wsse
man, declined all share in this mixed concern,
got his own part laid off TO himself, and has
enjoyed II ever since in peace and quictness.
| The British government, like another wise man,
accepted our proposal, went into partnership with
rs, took the use Of the whole TO herself, and
| now claims 1t as her own. We were the only
unwise in the transaction; and our mprovidence SO
| visible TO everybody now, only by myself
then, evidently resulted from the underestimate Of
the country, which was then so universal BY our
proposal OF partnership we prevented the settlement
| Of the boundary, and put power stronger than
ourselves In possession Of our property-a power
which has kept it so long that II begins to dream
that IL is its own; and now raising fleets and
armies, and preparing to set the four Of the
wO, ID on fire, to get him out again. had had the
vanity to denounce it the day first heard of it, the
year 1918, and thought was dong something. |
| even published my denuncation in articles which
leemed quite sensible, and expected to make great
sensation. On the contrary, not one responsive note
was obtained from the thousand newspapers which
the United States contained; and found myself as
solitary then in advance Of the public as now
/ behind ii.
trust that have made good our title, and that
upon British admissions, to the Columbia river and
us valley, modified by the line of Utrecht Up to
fight; but, before fighting, to talk-o talk UNI
derstandirgly, with knowledge Of the subject
| and to talk righteousy, with the great maxim be-
fore me: ask nothing but what is right-submit to
nothing that is wrong. Upon this principle have
now spoken, whether wisely, it is not for me to say
but it is not newly-it ia not new talk with me.
| Twenty-eght years ago wrote what now speak
Eighteen years ago, and when had already been
/ eight years member of this body, | submitted a
resolution in relation to this Oregon question, which
! have seen no reason to retract or modify since
that time, and which may stand for the text Of my
1
Resided That 1t is not exPeden for the government o.
the United states to treat with his Britannia Majesty IN
reference their territorial claims and boundaries west
the Rocky mountains upon the basis Of joint occupa
ton by the citizens Of the United States and subjects
Great britain Of ths country claimed by each power.
"Rsolrd That it is expedient for the government of tn,
United treat with his Brita Majesty In refer
their said claims and boundaries upon the
separation Of interests and the establishment OF 10th
degree Of north latitude permanent boundary bew
| them, in the shortest possible timer
1t was in the session Of 1928, and before
the ratification Of the second partnership conven-
| tion--the one determined to get rid OF
even at the price Of warand with the view of pre-
venting the ratification Of that convention that this
resolution was submitted. 1t presented my view OF
the settlement of this question, namely, partner
ships, the immediate establishment OF boundary
and the 49th parallel for that boundary. They ar,
my views now; and, having said enough agains
partnerships, and enough in favor of settling upor
some line, go on to give my reasons in favor o
that of forty.nine
1t is the line which parts, more suitably than
line following their high lands could do it, the val