The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-14


d. csssi bstiaia makss condition If the refer
saos haf - aekaesisdss Aa lille How could ar
"egaiiabe PARTITION be made, unless the title were
M both IN SOntostation for EMPIRE, she asks IA
70 dispenss her with the proofs before the arbitra
tof selected 10 decide VINO IL belongs to! In CUES
Nos fr'Eh she asks us to Sits her half as prece-
dent condition Of reference TO third party TO H.
cob What 70 half She asks for an arbitration, and
makes q condition Of the reference that the arbi-
ifsiot shall ssei& how we shd compromise And
ysi she Summons our government 70 witness in her
proposal, q proof Of the eonhdeneelof ufe British
Government ~ the justice Of their own claim ~
C~sld sbs, indeed. have obtained from US the ae-
SeA have bcea enure, n not In the justice OF her
cain, a leas. IN the triumphs Of her tact.
ID Ts resrsass pTopossd tracts concessions Of rShi
- a. go n pgsesdsHi Soadai0as Shioh she has
ssss'tsd . y Asr Stra For the last twenty years
ses has besa announcing 20 10, ~ the chart
- hsf nights IN Oregon, that they had been 'fTsd"
~ ne Nostka convention On looking into that,
% oea'd lad no greater OF other right conferred
,ssfeef than r-s's night Of nse la common with
ap@in Shas ne convention shsdi l.-g or, TO give
hss ths bsnshi q hsF oSn expressions, hEr e,r,ms
IN uTegon ere "h.asd 10 q right Of oint Ooeupan.
ey .na fei shs sii not hazard an arbitraInent un.
s.s ~ ~ 1'ak. her ooaesss'oas which will insure
her ~ ne s~ers-tce mech One mOletys OF
ne usairaCr fss and q the eminent DOMAIN, not
ne-a, and N pefPetaity' u V not objected at ali
ii-i ne should ssk the ssbFsioT 10 award her this,
bot ihai ses shosld exact u admisai0n Of her
nghi 70 las, V GUIDE o. sfb,lTslof 20 a line Of
segaiissls P@r,Itisni" n, Nc, fsRorl,am IL right
TIE ~ofid doss taks eogaEanns q those oosIo4 Yer
sc. s'Sssn sa,,s.. ~hieh u'sa.ss ris peace, and,
thanks - our god fousae, q ~ill not be a source
10 ~ q regrsi hat 'ths sorld oil Judge Of the
niodsIaiign ssd f.lfSs.s" ssiBoed ia this proposal
Isdo ~ B.sfis. 4sezliisa " ~ slaiss % Osszoa,
'oAai gussisSa IN ~ On artav.igs 70 ssidsi II
right u ioinl occupancy q al she claims, dc paf.
ties themselves, ia the London convention provided
q mode, and bound themselves 10 a mode, Of lsrmi.
ns'ing that true, Nhsn pressed upon the subject Of
utie, oreai briain has CSntuyed 10 r,d herself Of
the embarrassment, and give u the "go-by," With
an aNerment thai the titls xas IN atsyancs She
has never told Ne, however, Who pat q there %
h0s o 20, there. Certain u H. that Spain never
pat there, and q seems equally sure that Great
britain nese. had a 70 pat there. The NOOtka con-
'sn'ioo, ~hiis lasted, may have put ~ r,xh u
sEoiasirs 80 "in absysncs," bat not the faL; for
nothing shoH u Spans sEfrtis and Hs Of the tIls
osuid h-Ss conferred that right Of loint occupancy
which the Nootka convention voacbsafed But tie
assertion that the ude IN abeyspcs." 70 an I'D.
mission that she never acquired sny FROM Spaia
and IS 10 risking 10 taH Grlatrament ths By,iisk
against the Spanish title 10 Oregon, With right o.
award 10 the strongest history JSsiikts the asssr-
ton that Great Britain never ventured the hazard;
and the past "a safe voucher for the prediction that
she never will
We'll, the American Secretary Of sts,s under IN
struetions from the President respectfully declined
the proposal Of the British envoy, and briefly no.
tIeIDg the fact that the proposal did not include the
question Of title, Iniimssd very decidedly that that
mode Of adjustment would no, be acceptable TO
this government. But Mr. Pakenham's ardor 10
get upon the underground IN the negotiation
was not to be checked by any such discourage
rnent II acted as incentive, rather, inismuch as
the credit sought for Ia be reaped nj scarcely
risk; nevertheless, being without instructions from
the home government, he took care not TO commit
himself, and 30, instead Of making a proposai-as
many suppose hun TO have done-he only made
inquiry, for IN his note Of the 18th Of January
last, he thus expressed himself
The object Of the undersigned IN addressing to
Mr.. Buchanan the present communication, Is TO
ascertain from him whether, saPpOsiIg ne British
gorsvnmsni 70 entertain objection 10 such course, It
would suit the views Of the United States govern
ment to refer TO arbitration, not as has already
been proposed, the question Of an equitable parti-
ton Of the territory but The question Of title in either
Of The tlco poioos 20 the ,ohois territory, subject Of
course, 10 the condition that neither should be found IN
the opinion ~ the arbitrator, 10 possess a COMPLETE
TITLE 10 the Thois territory, there should in that case
be assigned TO each that portion Of territory rheh ood
IN The opinion Of the arbitraiing poioer be called for BY
just appreciation Of the respective claims Of each"
This, Of course, was no proposal from the British
government; and had Il been accepted, would not
have bound her. The British minister was spared
a very unpleasant dilemma through the frankness
and straghforwardness Of the American govern
ment, which, having no cenceaments when its pur-
poses are fixed, treated the hypothesis with the
like respect as If It had been a proposal formally
made. As the example Of the secretary has been
deemed meet for appreciation, so is II deemed meet
for observance, and will be followed here.
Ell IL l..,..
STANCE, from the just replied TO- The terms are,
that unless there be complete title 10 The ,chois terrific
~" in Of the parties, the arbitrator would be bound
10 assign 10 each that portion Of territory which
would, in the opinion Of the srbtrating power, be
called for by a just appreciation OF the claim, of
BOTH" that is TO say, (for that is Just what means
there should be an equitable partition" between
them. Now, that alternative would follow lnevta-
bly,. All eminent publicists agree that the right OF
exclusive possession is essential to compies title y"
How, then, would it have been possible for US to
have shown complete title" when we had parted
with the right of eIe!usp: possession under the Lon
don convention Of 1922 Thus would the parties
have been inevitably thrown back upon an "equta-
Bile PARTITION" through our implied concessions or
waiver Of title.
9th. Neither ofttese proposals touch the onlp point in
dispute Ii never has for a moment been matter Of
between the two governments, as to
what would be an equitable partition" of the terri
either possessed complete title to the whole ter
ritory, but simply and only, WHICH OF THEM POS
,EssED THE BEST TITLE TO EVERY PART AND TO THE
WHOLE; That is the sole matter in condensation
md has been for these thirty years; and yet that is
he very matter which Great Britain has never offer
ID to submit, and all the chances are that she never
will. Nevertheless, she takes to herself all the
,redt of having offered to submit all the matters,
md the only matters in dispute, to fair and honor
able arbitration.
7th. References that fair must involve things Of
quiuatn paiuss, putting equal rights al equal risk,
How are rights of eminent domain to be referred
against rights of joint occupancy without forcing
hem into Procr,rtedn equality by looping Off the
'ne or stretching out the other, to the needed d.
nensions' But If Great Britan's claim to any part
IF Oregon amounts to claim Of title, why does she
.equire a condition Of the erbitrament to sub
nit TO a reference that portion Of ours which she
admits us to possess She has repeatedly admitted
md in the most formal manner, that we have title
o each and every part Of Oregon-even up to the
Ultima thule Of $40 40; and certainly the interest she
does not fall short Of an undirided
noiety of The whoie. Why then should she. call
Upon US to arbirate that? How can a nation
De expected to arbtrate what is not in dis
,iitep Afier her acknowledgements the utmost