The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-02

- they desired TO do--what the people Of the
rai,sJ States demanded of them. And ii they
could give this protection, TOR lac understood tina
In vbo we're opposed 10 the notice said they wer,
Gyor of giving this protection, ofbuding forts il
uoregon for the securing the nights Of person and o.
nro9erty of our settlers there, and for giving then
Eomes; for that was what they wanted, that wal
What they left the United States for,) he insisted
thai those who took the position that We could sf
uc1 this protection without giving the notice, wer,
me war party in this House he insisted that the carry
Ds out Of this position would not only bring into
var but into an inglorions war, on the hypothesis
uhat we shall thus have acted in bad filth-that we
shall have acted in conlrayention Of existing treaty
spualons
Now, what were the exact woads of the treaty Of
ulsls, as renewed IN 1927 For on the terms Of thai
treaty would depend our rights And he would
,xpain the position be had taken in his speech upor
Inns question al the last session Of Congress. He
linen went against the notice. and for the passage Of
HE Territorial bill, whichtseeured TO the people Of
uOregon their rights. He did the belief at tina
uume that the English government were making set.
Nlsmens in Oregon---,hat they had extended the
pdnciples Of The common law TO their people in
UOregon, and also that they had actually carried ou
hsr views this extent for twenty years; and that
We had the same rights under the existing treaty
between as. But he found that the fact was now
presented In different light; and he would ask the
Nssndemen!fro Indiana, who spoke Of the English
stllements in Oregon, how he explained the position
In Mr.. Buchanan Speaking Of the Nootka Sound
Ieonysnlion, in his letter 10 Mr.. Pakenham, he
bays: ..t.
"trvst Britain had made any settlement the
ohy Of America, from the date Of the Nooks
Eonnd enion until the 71d Of February 1919; nor
the undersigned is informed has she done so down to
the present moment"
| Great Britain, then, chad never made any settle
knent" Those forts there, which the gentleman
kpoke Of were not the forts Of Great Britain; he
meant they were not governmental forts. They
have been erected by that company which had IL
f.nse TO trade, hunt, and fish in that territory, in
order to carry out their purposes. The settlements
there made made with the same intent. There
bre he was forced the conclusion from the stale
ment Of our negotialor hmself in this expression;
land all must admit from this expression, flor oil ofus
ere bound by this expression,) that Great Britain
bad made settlements in the territory Of Oregon.
This statement, then, changed his views on thesub-
beet. And in addition TO this the President Of the
United States had expressed the opinion in 1929
hal we had no rights, no powers whatsoever, under
existing treaty stipulations, TO establish forts in
Oregon; and he says in his message at the COM
neucement Of thus session, that II is "a matter de-
serving the gravest deberation''-plninlyn on-com-
initial on the question whether have the power,
without violation OF treaty stipulations, to make
giants Of land, or tn give promises Of grants Of
and urtiI the treaty is terminated. In addition TO
ths, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr..
ApAMs al early stage Of this session. stated that
uhf ONLY figntS we ndu reservoir ourselves unueT
The treaty were the rights of hunting fishing, and
navigation, and the right of settlement, with a
Syisw to carry out these objects. The opinion Of
kir CALHors, also--whose opinion always had
|much weight with him--was the same he states
'emphaticaly that under the existing treaty we
have right to promise To grant iands, and no
Irgh grant lands in that territory. In addition to
this, there large portion Of the people Of the
Hunted States who had expressed their views
Through their organs in the Senate, several occa-
|sions, thar we have right to grant lands, or to
promise TO grant lands under the existing treaty.
And superadded to all this the authority of the
PAST Congress, when he Mr. t. believed the notice
unnecessary; yet the opposite opinion was taken,
and the notice was inserted. The opinion of the
advocates Of the bill then that we could neither
make grants or promises Of grants Of land without
fnt giving the notice and Terminating the joint
pancy. After all these opinions thus expressed by
going forward and adopting these measures without
giving the notice, they would certainly place them
selves in the position of acting euivocay this sub
tect--of attempting to exercise an authority over
terrtory while placed in such eircam-tnuces by our
own treaty stipulations, as that were not con-
Ivineed that we had the full right to do.
But he had before him an authority which SEEM
led to have considerable weight, because il was
IA book published by order of both houses Of Con-
Igress MIR. T. read short extract from Green
hows Oregon and California, on this point, taking
Iaimlar views to the last authority referred to
|own writer--a gentleman appointed by ourselves TO
colect all the opinions and autborities'upon the sub
Ijec of Ofegon--stating that we have right what
|soever to do what these gentlemen say they are
Iready to do.
But he had an authority which would have some
weight in this House, showing how this measure of
gvng these laws and asserting these rights Of settle
|ment will be viewed on the other side Of the wa
tier, and in the Parliament Of Great Britain. He
quoted from the speech ofLord Pamerston, deliver
ed in ls43, in reference to the bill passed by the
|Senate to extend the laws of Iowa over Oregon; to
give our settlers there justices of the peace,
|stables, and other officers; and promising that
when the title vested in the United States would
give them good and complete title in that ter
|ntory. #t.t t@
MIR. T. read this extract in which, among other
Ihngs it was declared: "Ifthis bill were to pass into
d law it would be declaration of war. 1t would be
an invasion and seizure of territory in dispute, by
virtue of the decree of Of the parties in its own
favor.nS ~
Such said MrsT) was the view taken by the
leader of one of the large parties in Great Britain:
How was it replied to by Sir Robert Peel, the head
of the other partyi
This extract declared that 'the adoption of that
bill would be cause of war."] ...
Here, then, CONFINED Mr.. T. is the pledge of these
two great parties in Great Britain, given through
Ithe head of each, that to give our settlers laws
and homes for our people go there for nothing else
than for cultivation of the soil and for honea.)
would necessarily bring into difficulty; that they
would regard il violent seizure of the disputed
Territory, open nfraction Of the treaty, as
declaration Of war. Do gentlemen suppose if we
now pass this bill without giving the notice, that the
Parliament Of Great Brtain-that these distinguish
ed sintesmen--wil not again look on the subject in
the same Light E ... :.
And when reviewing the circumstances Of the
case, he (Mr. ID must say that this view of the
question was plausible; for, in 1873 be il remem-
bered, our population was only 100000, about
l,70O, 900 OF whom wcrr west Of the Allegheny
mountains, and not more than 100000 west Of the
Mississippi We had now advanced, in 1886, to
population Of more than 90 900 0OOO, 5000, 600 Of
whom were west Of the Allegheny mountains and
| about 2000000 west of the mississippi We then
believed that there were of settling Oregon
without going round the Cape of Good Hope; the
/ Cape Of Good Hope was almost an impassabie bar.
ner. And there were many in 1924 who believed
| that the Rocky mountains were the ultima hnie OF
our republic and that il impossible that there
should be any other then independent government
on the other side. But since that time, we had made
the rapid strides in of easy and rapid
INSTRUMENTATION; steam had been applied more
extensively; railroads had been constructed, and