Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1846-04-18


the question was asked, is this country prepared
for war I? he should answer no. The country never
had been prepared beforehand for war, and never
would be. The American people had great dis
like to taxation, and they would not be taxed for
war which might never take place. They were ac-
tuated by " don't care policy" "don't care
feeling" until the emergency arose, when they
would be found acting as one man. The notice
would facilitate negotiation would take the brush
out of the path" The offer for negotiation must
come from England: he should not wish that any
offer should originate with this country, unless we
were quite sure that England desired and would
accept it.
He had great respect for England and for many
of her Institutions. The notice was not calculated
to produce war with her. He had nothing to say
against the individual national character of Eng
land it was with her international character, her
conduct towards the rest of the world that he dis
agreed. He compared the mode in which England
had acquired territory in India, and France in AL
gera, with that by which the United States had an
nexed Texas to her dominion.
He thought that any sugger 'ons as to negotia-
ton, il connected with the notice. would only tend
to embarrass the Executive, and to strengthen the
claims of Great Britain.
| Much of the feeling of irritation between the
two countries might, he thought, be traced to the
public journals of BOTH Mr.. ii. read an extract
| from late London paper, and commented upon it
at considerable length in proof Of this opinion.
He would treat with England upon this question,
he said, on principles of justice and magnanimty.
He would adopt precisely the same course towards
her, whether she was the strongest mr. the weakest
OF nations. Aa
1t was not his purpose to examine the question
of title, give his opinion respecting it, because
every additional expressed opinion would increase
the embarrassment of the Executive. He would
not say for what boundary line he would vote for
such declaration might be embarrassing under
future circumstances. Whether he was in favor of
400 or $40 40, had nothing to do with the present
question.
He thought if treaty were now before the Sen
ate conceding the navigation of the Columbia, that
he could not vote for it, and he afraid that any
division Of the country by an imaginary line would
prove but a patchwork kind of settlement, which
would lead to future difficulties.
He preferred giving the naked notice, without
| any provisoes or clauses whatever. He would en-
| join nothing upon the President but to give the
notice, and would leave him to attach what qualif-
cations he pleased to it.
Mr. HoUsToN gave long historical narrative Of
the rise and progress of the negotiations between
the United States and Texas, which ended in an
nexation.
Shortly after the Senate assembled, on Thurs
| day last, Mr.. CRITTENDEN commenced his observa-
tons. He said that he should confine himself al
most entirely to the question of notice. If actual
possession and settlement were the requisites to
a good title, land that they were he fully admitted
then the mouth of Columbia river would be fixed
as the proximate boundary of the American title,
and that Of Frazer's river would designate in the
like proximate manner the boundary of the claim
of Great Britain. The latitude of 49o would be
the suitable boundary for the claims of the two
countries, and it always had been regarded such
by this country. Mr.. jefferson in 1907 desired to
extend the boundary of 40 beyond the Rocky
Mountains to the Pacific, but he failed in accom-
plishing it. The treaty or convention of 1918 pro-
posed the same boundary, but the adjustment was
again procrastnated. and the treaty of what has
been called joint occupancy was entered into. This
/ rrzsy WIS renewed in 1927, when the clause re-
speeding twelve months notice was introduced, and
it continued until the present time.
| Mr.. CRITTENDEN thought that the best policy of
the country would have been to continue this joint
occupancy, at least for the present. He asked,
what has premaurely agitated the question? By
whom has it been brought into the arena of party
politics II first made its appearance at the Bat-
more Convention. This premature discussion
would, ne feared, have tendency to produce mis-
chief beyond the Rocky Mountains The irritat-
/ ing question was now before the Senate, and must
be disposed of. Under existing circumstances, he
was persuaded that giving the notice to terminate the
joint occupancy would, by making both parties look
closer to the final adjustment of the question: be
the best mode ofpreserving the peace ofthe country
The mere giving notice had nothing necessarily Of
hostile character. 1t could only derive that cha
racer from the manner and the terms with which
1t should be accompanied. There was much more
danger OF war, he thought, to be apprehended from
the Withholding Of the notice than from giving il in
proper mode. The convention which led to Joint
occupancy was, in his opinion, at the time when il
! was entered into, a wise and saluiary measure.
When the notice is given, it will be the President
duty to negotiate and settle the final question OF
boundary. He could not be suspected of intending
10 use the notice as a war measure the course of
the Administration down to the present moment
does not indicate any such idea. The power of the
notice would be placed in his hands as means Of
preserving peace; and although it was to some ex-
tent taking leap in the dark, there was less dan
ger, ne thought in doing than in continuing the
present system under existing circumstances II
every exertion is not used to settle the matter ami
cably, and the country is plunged unnecessarily
into war, let the President look to the awful re-
sponsibility which he would incur He would not
be absolved from it by any party claim nor by any
thing growing out Of the Baltimore Convention
j The United States have uniformly since 1918 Of
fered Great Britain the boundary of 40, which
Great Britain has always rejected. Great Britain
has uniformly proposed the boundary of the Co
lumbIa river, which this country has always refus-
ed TO agree 10. 1t was a mere question of proper-