Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-08-20
The Navigation of the Columbia.

:, difference of opinion prevails to very great
extent, both in this country and in England, the
construction of that section of the Oregon treaty,
giving to the Hudson's Bay Company the free naviga-
ton of the Columbia river,-some maintaining the
grant TO be perpetual and others that ii is limited to
the duration Of the Company's present charter. The
language of the treaty is certainly ambiguous but it
seems to us that the position assumed by the Phla-
dephia Ledger in the following article is The correct
one.
The newspapers, American and British are at sar
about the extent of the rights granted by the Oregon
treaty, 10 British subjects in the navigation of the
Columbia river. A leading. w hig journal of New
York has twice said that the grant perpetual 10 all
British subjects. Some lawyers of Washington upon
examination of the charter to the Hudsons Bay
Company. reach the conclusion. The British
journals, without having seen the treaty, and doubtless
without instruction from any body competent TO en-
tighten them, take the ground Of course. the
British journalists would take for granted that all the
advantages of the treaty secured to their own
nation, and withheld from But VIC must remern-
Der that In country where cabinet secrets are much
more carefully kept, than in ours journalists are
less authentic even than our leter-wrtes and how
rery accurate they are, the wellnformed and reflect
| ing judge But while expecting all this in Brit
is journals we amused at the alacrity with which
certain American journals jump at the British side of
I
distress at the thought of justice their own country
The second article of the treaty is plain enough
| 1t grants the navigation of the Columbia 80 TO the
Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British subjects
trading with the same" After defining the geogra-
phca extent of the navigation thus granted the same
article of the treaty says in the connection
in navigating the said river rivers, British subjects
with their goods and produce shall be treated on the
same footing citizens ofshe UHited States" Then
fellows, and in the sentence, the exclnsfTerght
of the United States to regulate the navigation of the
river rivers, not inconsstenty with this treaty
Here then two parties, the United States on one
side, and the Hudson's Bay Company and British sub
]ects trading with them, the other; and the nav-
CATION of a river is the thing granted Jy the first
paEtE. and to the second and while the first party
has esole right aPTescrbing the modes of this
igatiOn tespcoDd has the right in Il s2nder
these modes, with the first The first question pre-
scented is, who are the second party! The Hudson's
Bay Company received a charter in 1893, limited TO
twentyone years. and therefore will cease TO exist
under this charter in 1859. Therefore the obvious
Limitation of the grant to the Company is thirteen
years. But told that the charter may be re-
newed, and the new charter may be perpetual and
that if it should be- the grant would be perpetual In
treaties between sovereign States all grants con-
strued strictly against the grantee; and in municipal
law all grants expire with the life of the grantee,
utess terRs expressly proong them to success
ors. Thus grant of>load to A in fee, without the
word heirs vests in merely estate for his life
or 10 corporation without the word successors, is
limited to the duration of the charter under which it
existed as a corporation when the grant was pazla.
The grant under this treaty is made TO the Hudsons
Bay Company it now exists, and TO that 0nlg 1t
is distinct specific corporation. of limited duration
and with direct view to that limitation must Tie
treaty be construed, word of prolongation or sue
censorship, perpeuty being used. The grant is to
the Hudson's Bay Company, and not 10 any other
company, not yet existing. In 1859, this Hudsons
Bay Company ceases to.s<ist. Upon whom then does
the grant operate! Nsh9d1sA2eeao receive it, and
consequently it reverts to the gfsntor But weshail
be told that the Companys life is prolonged by new
charter We answer that its life is not thereby pro-
onged, but thhtSssnew life. is gReR-tosit, or more
properly that lie is given to a thing. The new
charter creates company and therefore considers
the old if it never had existed. This new
charter so far the rights of a sovereign State, a
nation, are concerned, has no connection with, and
therefore cannot operate upon the past. Ii can ope-
rate only upon the future, that future which begins
] with its date. The navigation of the Columbia river,
granted by this treaty, is now thing of the past to
this charter. 1t died with the old charter. Hence
this charter could reach this old grant,
haRsitcoud any Of the since EXTINCT,
granted by the Old South Sea Company, than a
Railroad Corporation from Boston to Plymouth, could
revive the old privileges of the old Massachusetts Bay
Company. The od.RudSon's Bay Company of 1888
will have served Its purpose and be dead, in 1859,
and the new Hudson's Bay Company, if any such
snail then or aiteFNaT0S DC CTedlCu, VIII DC Qulle
ahother thing Irrespective, but no retrospective
operation. ~
But all the unexplred contracts with the old
company will inure to the new. This true, far
as it covers contracts between the Hudson's Ras.
Company, which is British subject and any other
British Subjects for the nation never dies, and its
laws for public convenience, continue all its
subjects till repealed But the United States are not
british subject, but milton; and grant by them
TO the British nation. for the benefit of a particular
British subject, of limited duration, cannot be pro-
longed by the British nation alone without the con-
cuIrence of the United States for the benefit of ano-
thcr British subject The United States have made
grant to the Hudson's Bay Company of ls;SSS. dying
in 1852 properly to British nation for the
use Of this company; and the British nation alone
cannot extend that grant TO another person. the Hud-
sons Bay Company of 1860 If it could, it might,
by parity Of arguments the grant to the East
India Company the Bank of England for great
er power is necessary transfer it from the grantee
named, to new person or person not named, than
another.
"But the grant extends TO British SUBJECTS and
they not being specified the grant is perpetual to all
British subjects" But the British subjects who are
grantees are specified, and they subjects trading
with the Hudson's Bay Company, and no others; and
the Company dies in 1859, British subjects can
afterwards trcie with It. They might well talk OF
trading tim with the ancient Romans, and contend
for the free and perpetual igatfof Of the Styx
0E-A London paper sneers at Mr.. Golden, The
anti-corn-law leader, thuss~~-
Sand Iclo is Mr.. Golden, and ,chat has he done
IL r1o