The Arkansas banner., 1846-02-11

t'iA HS et' "th iN6 ltiAldhEa l{stn II would not avail Great Britain, e9en fl she should prove the Rootka Convention to be still in force On the contrary, this Convention, if the con struetion placed upon it by the undersigned be correct, contains clear virtual admission on the part of Great Britain that Spain held the eventual right of sovereignty over the whole disputed territory; and consequently that 1t now belongs to the thited States.
 The value of this admission, made in f79O, l Is the same whether or notihe convention has [ continued to exist until the pfesen. dav.-t But he is willing to leave lhis point on the | unconiroverted argument contained in his | fumoF statement.
 But Is the Nootla Sound convention still in iosce2 The British plaaipo,entiary does not contest the clear general principles of pebllc law, "that war, terminates all subsis- ting treaties between the helligerent powersn He contends, however, iii the first place, that this convention is partly commercial; and that, so far as it parlakes of this character, it was revived by the treaty concluded at Ma drid on the 28th August, 1874, which de- clares, "tlat all the treaties of commerce which subsrted between the two parties, Great Britain and Spain,) in l796, were thereby ratified and confrmed;D and, 2d, ''that in other respects 1t must be consider ed as an acknowledgment of subsisiing rights-an admission of certain principles o international law,n not to be revoked by war.
 In regard to the first proposition, the un- dersigned Is satisfied to leave the question to rest upon his former argument, as the British plenipoteniiary has coniented himself With merely asserting the fact, that the com merclal portion of the Nootka Sound con vention was revived by the treaty of lSld, without even specifying what he considers to be that portion ot that convention. 1.-the undersigned had desired to strengthen his lolmer position, he might have repeated with great effect the argument contained in the note of Lord Aberdeen to the Duke of Soto- mayor, dated 30tll June, lS45, in which his lordship clearly established that all the trea- ties of commerce subsisIing between Great Britain and Spain previous 10 l796, were confined to the trade with Spain alone, and did not embrace her colonies and remote possessions.
 Tine proposition of the British plenipo- tentlary deserves gfeateraitentien Does the Nootka Sound convention belong 10 that class of treaties contaising ''an acknowledge ment of subsistng rights-an admission of cer- tain principles of internation atlaw'' not be abrogated by war; Had Spain by this con yentlon acknowledged the right of all na- lions to make discoveries, plant settlements and establish colonies on the Northwest coast oi America, bringing with them their sovereign jurisdiction, there would have been much force in the argument But such admission never was made, and never was intended to be made, ky Spain. The \ Nootka convention is arbitrary and artificial in the highest degree, and is anything rather than mere acknowledgment ol simple and eemen- tary principles, consecrated by the law of nations. In all it's provisions it is expressly confined to Great Britain and Spain, and ac- | knowledges no right whatever in any third power to interfere with the Northwesi coast Of America. Neither n it's tetms, nor in its essence, does 1t contain any acknowiedg- ment of previously subsisting territorial rights in Great Britain or any other nation. IL Is, strictly confined to future engagements, and these are of a most peculiar character. Even under the constructions of it's provi- siong maintained by Great Britain, her claim does not extend to plant colonies, which she would have had right to dc under the law of nations, had the country been unaPpro- prlated; but II is limited to mere right O joint occupancy, not in respect to any part but to the whole, the sovereignty remaining in abeyance. And to what kind of occupaa- cy? Not separate and distinct colonies | L,,t IoI ,tI, each other, over the whole surface of the territory, for the single purpose of trading with the Indians, 10 all of which the subjects of each power should have free access. lhe right of exclusive dominion remaining sus- pended. Surely, il cannot be successfully contended, that such treaty is '.an admis- sion of certain principles of international law" so sacred and So perpetual in their natures us not to be annuled by war. On the contrary, from the character of its pro- visions, 1t cannot be supposed for single moment, that it was intended for any pur- pose but that of mere temporary arrange ment bctween Great Britain and Spain The law Of nations recognises no such principles in regard to unappropriated territory as those embraced in this treaty; and the British pleni- potentiary must fail in the attemp. 70 prove that 1t contains San admission of certain principles of international law" which will survive the shock of war.
 But the British plenipotentiary contends that from the slepce of Spain during the negotiations of 1918 between Great Britain aud the United States respecting the Oregon territory, as well as ''hom her silence with respect 10 the continued occupation by the British of their settlements in the Columbia territory, subsequently to the convention o l8l4," it may fairly be "inlerred that Spain considered the slipulations of the Nootka convention, and the principles therein lad down, to be still in force"
 The undersigned cannot imagine a cas, where the obligations of a treaty, once ex tinguisked by war, can be revived without positive agreement to this effect between tn parties. Even if both parties after the con clusion of peace, should perform positive and unequivocal acts in. accordance with it provisions, these must be construed as mere, ly voluntary, to be discontinued by either at pleasure. But in the present case i IS no even pre'ended that Spain performed any ac in accordance with the Convention ot Nool- ka Sound, after her treaty with Great Britain