The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-08-20
NAVIGATION OF THE COLUMBIA.

| -
! lows
1.-THE Baltimore Sun seems to take il for granted
with others, that the charter of the Hudson Bay
Company, granted by Charles H., ia 1911, extend
ed to the west of the Rocky mountans-that Is, tc
the territory called Oregoni whereas It would really
appear that the charter confined TO the territory
10 The east Of the Rocky mountains, and that the
only privilege conceded 10 the company TO the Wesi of tn
Rocky mountains, now rests on the crown grant,
the Hudson Bay Company, of the exclusive trade
with the Indians in certain parts Of North America
for term of hosnty-ons years, and upon surrender
| of former grant This crown grant was made Il
the company previous TO 1893; and as il runs only
for 81 years, expires in 1885, and with 1t all the
benefits of the navigation Of the company, which !:
| secured TO them, and those trading with them, by
the late convention between the United States and
Great Britain"
The New York Courier offers the following com.
| ment upon our article
"The Union does not say that the crown grant
Of 1888 required the surrender of the grant Of 1871
though this is lefl be inferred. II that was the
grant surrendered then doubtless the grant of 1885
is the only tenure by which the Hudson Bay Com
pany holds its privileges and existeneej and when
that terminates, the existence Of the company must
terminate, and with il, of course, the privilege OF
| navigating the Columbia But if this crown grant
of 1888 was simply an addition TO the original char.
TER II It merely enlarged the rights conferred by the
original grant Of 1871, then its determination would
not in any way affect the latter; and although the
company in 1853 may lose the exclusive trade with
the Indians conceded by the grant Of 1885, il would
still preserve its existence and its right trade with
British subjects others. And this il all that is
necessary to secure to Ii, according to the Oregon
treaty, the perpetual navigation Of the Columbia
river. The explanation Of the 'Union,' therefore,
by no means clears the question Of its difficulties,
&c, &c.
The argument OF the New York editor il certain
y not conclusive. The former grani' TO which that
Of 1888 refsrs) was another gran made in 1921
to the Hudson Bay Company, well to the North
west Company of Montreal, to deal with the Indians
in furs, &c. In 1924, the claims Of the North west
Company to trade under this license were extin.
suished by mutual consent; and in 1888 the new
crown grant was given to the Hudson Bay Com
psny Of exclusive trade with the Indians west OF
the Rocky mountains but not to the prejudice or ex-
cusion Of any citizen of the United Staes and this
grant was to run for twenty-one years. II seems,
therefore, to follow, that in 1885, when this royal
grant expires, the right to trade with the Indians
and to navigate the Columbia, will expire also. The
grant Of 1888 does "add to and enlarge the rights OF
the Hudson Bay Company, it is true, but only for
limited term-viz twenty lone years; and the nights
of the British who trade with them on the river will
cease also. But though the grant expires in 1859
west Of the Rocky mountains it does not affect the
charter Of the company on the east side Of the
Rocky mountains. That charter expressly defines
the territories Of. the Hudson Bay Company to be
hose drained by streams falling into Hudson's
bay.
And now we ask, upon what ground Of proprie-
ty or Of patriotism does any American journal
pretend to carp, cavi, or decry the rights of the
United States, and cry up the claims Of foreign
nation' The British government may not set up
any such pretension hereafter, unless spirited
up by our papers and politicians But here we find
the New York Courier already taking sides with
Great Britain against the rights of the United States
whilst decided majority ofthe American Senate, and
among them some Of the most distinguished wings
have taken ground against the perpetual navigation
| of the Columbia river. The course of the New
York Courier speaks little for its patriotism as
! for its discretion.
Since making the preceding comments, we see in
| the columns Of this mornings National Intelligen
Ger the speech delivered by T. II. Benton, esq in
me secret session of the Senate. We publish it o
our own accord, without any request of any one
The speech contains some strong views, with some
| valuable information upon the Oregon convention
and that is enough for to know. The senator
from Missouri has right to select his medium, and
we hold ourselves bound to lay everything before
our readers which il calculated TO enlighten our
country upon her true rights and interests. In this
spirit, therefore, we lay COL Bentons speech before
which we make upon the comments of the New
York Courier. The speech explains with great force
the true meaning of the convention regards the
navigation of the Columbia. 1t denies, and we are
happy to agree with the senator that the convention
does convey to the Hudson Bay Company, and tc
call British subjects trading with the same, the rgh
of navigating the Columbia forever. We are un.
fortunate enough to differ with the senator in
respect, connected with this point. He says the
new license begins to take effect in the year 1912,
and therefore runs to 1862 when the rights of navi
CATION under the late convention will expire. We
hold, on the contrary, that the, second royal grant
began in 1885, that it runs for twenty-one years
ant of course expires in 1859, when the right Of
navigation in the Hudson Bay Company ceases
Upon another point we differ with the senator
from Missouri. We deny that there were two
Hudson Bay companies, and two charters, and we
are prepared, if necessary, to make good our posi-
tions