Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1846-02-28
Mr.. Buchanan to Mr.. Pakenham.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

"oshuS tous ftuS Hcus lo4O'
The undersigned, Secretary Of State Of
the United States, has the honor TO &C.
knowledge the receip. Of the note Of Mr..
Pakenham, her Britanic majesty's envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipoten,ia
ry, dated on the 18th ultimo, by which he
again proposes a reference Of the Oregon
question to arbitration. Under his pres.
ent proposition, the powers Of the arb,ra.
tor would not, as in his last, be limited in
terms to the division Of the territory be-
tween the parties, but would extend to the
question OF their conflicting titles. There
is, however, condition annexed to this Of.
fer which exposes it TO the same objection,
in point OF fact, il not in form, which
was prominently presented in the an,
swer OF the undersigned TO Mr.. Paken
hams last proposal. This condition is,
"that if neither (party] should be found, in
the opinion OF the arbitrator, TO possess q
complete title to the whole territory, there
should in tina, case, be assigned TO each that
portion of territory which would, in the
opinion Of the arbl,rating power, be called
for by just appreciation OF the respective
claims of each" II the government, of the
United States should consent 10 an arblt, a.
ton upon such condition, this might, and
probably would be construed into an il.
timation, If not direct invitation, to the
arbitrator TO divide the territory between
the parties. Were it possible for the Presi
dent, under any circumstances, TO consent
to refer the subject TO arbitration, the title.
and the title alone, detached from every
other consideration, Is the only question
Iph Ich rn1lH ha alh ol IL
10 single point, 80 strong is the natural
disposition OF arbltrators to please both par.
ties, that in almost every instance, whether
OF national or individual controversies, they
make compromising award. We have a
memorable example OF this in our last arb
lralion with Great Britain. Notwi,hstand
ing that the arbitrator, under the terms of
the submission, was clearly and explicitly
confined to the decision OF which was the
line Of highlands described in the treaty OF
peace Of 1888, yet, instead Of pursuing any
range Of highlands whatever, he advised
that the line should run along the bed of a
river, and actually divided the territory in
dispute between the parties by 'the middle
OF the deepes, channel Of the St. Johns"
The undersigned might content himself.
W oHS"e W VIC PiesrHt Pfoposltlou, Win
reference TO the observations contained
in his last note to Mr.. Pakenham Of the Sd
ultimo. In that, it was plainly minated
not only that there arc 'o,her conclusive
reasons for declining the Pr propositions" nde-
pendently Of the one which had been prom
inently stated, but il was expressly asser.
ted as the belief of the President, "that any
attempt to refer this question to a third
power would only involve i, in new Difficult
ties"
The undersigned will, however, proceed
to state singl reason which apart from
the intrinsic difficulty of selecting suita
Bile arbitrator, as well as other conaidera.
tons that nigh. be adduced, is conclusive
on the mind Of the President agalns, a ref
erence OF this question TO arbitration, in any