The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-15

the Issuing process Hesne and hna and In all other re-
SPects whatsoever within the said Indian territories, and
other parts Of America Within the limits Of either Of the
provinces 81 Lower or Upper Canada or oil any civil gov
invested with within the limits Of the said provinces q
Lower or Upper Canada respectively and that all and
every contract agreement debt liability, and demand
whasoeyeT made entered into incurred or arising within
the said Indian territories other parts OF America and
IT, real or personal som@ittsd or dom within the ss%e
shall be and be deemed to be- Of the same nature and be
Isble BY the courts masstrates or justices Of
the peace and be tried in the manner and subject 10
the same consequences In all respects as II the same had
DONE within the said province Of Upper Canada anythns
sny acts Of Parliament grant or Charter 10 The
cOnsry Outstanding PrOrdsd Away. thar all .uS
spect Of lands not being within the province Upper
ada shall be decided according to the laws Of part
the United Kingdom called England and shall not Be- sub
ect TO affected by sny local acts statutes laws of the
legislature Of Upper Canada"
There CONTINUED Mr.. g. is the British law as
general as language could make il, extending over
| all this northwestern territory the laws of Upper
Canada. grant, Mr.. Chairman, that in the ad min.
ration Of this law the intelligent agents Of the Hud-
| son Bay Company, have never construed it so as
| to make its processes bear on the citizens Of the
United States. 1 grant construction has been
given 10 1t by the officers and agents ofhe Hudson
| Bay Company, 80 as 10 prevent the execution OF
| the law becoming an infringement of the convention
of 1927 but it the construction they have wise
ly placed upon il, and not the terms the law itself
that has prevented such infringement. As 10 very
properly remarked bya friend on my right-that is
a construction that can be changed at pleasure. But
the law Of Parliament is in direct conflict with the
treaty Of 1875 which was then existence for il sx-
tended the lays of Canada over the territory Of Or
egon, without any exception whatever, or any allu-
sion to the rights guaranteed to the citizens Of the
United States under the convention oflsl9.
Now Is such the law now awaiting the action Of
this committed IL not its first section what pur-
ports TO bel Upon whom 10 il TO operate Upon
tfIah anhl fsl Il and In -.
alone for the protection Of the rights Of American
settlers who have gone there, and for the punish.
| ment OF crimes that there may be committed by
| American settlers in the territory of Oregon. Ii
extends the laws and Jurisdiction Of the courts Of To-
wa TO this distant territory, as the British Law had
extended the laws Of Upper Canada over the north
west coast Of America; but in the first section il
clearly and plainly excerpts the rights of British sub
| jects growing out Of the conventions Of 1918 and
| 1927. And the only amendment | should like to
see prevail TO that section, 10 an amendment which
should strike out all Of the 18th line after the word
"lS27" TO the end Of the section so az TO limit il in
| its operation 10 the existence of the "ioni
occupancy" $50 called) contend that this section
thus modified would make this bill as it should be
| temporary. IL should be what the President re-
commendsd 1t TO be-a bill TO protect the rights oil
our settlers there, until this "ioint occupancy
shall cease; and with the amendment have sug-
gested, is properly framed TO accomplish that OBJ
| ject.
| Now, is there anything in the I'd, Sd, and 5th
sections Of this bill which makes 1t amenable to the
| objections of the gentleman from South Carolinai
| The I'd section merely provides the courts before
| whom the crimes committed there shall be tried
it merely designales the tribunals that shall adiu
dictate all matters Of right between own citizens
The 80 section merely provides for the appointment
Of civil officers there; and the 5th section merely for
the appointment OF Indian agents regulate trade
| between the Indians and our own emgranB there
during this "jolnt-occupancy," and the ex.
ecution Of the laws extended over that country by
| the first section of this act
Now, is there anything Objectionable therei any.
thing that infrnges the rights Of the subjects Of
Great Britain under the convention Of 1918, and as
| ontinued by the convention Of 1922 Why, wha
is that eonventoni During the discussion upoa the
notice, Mr.. Chairman, it was very properly re-
Marked that at the date Of the convention of 1918
we should have been considered the party rightful
ly in possession. We were in possession certainly
| OF the fort at the mouth Of the Columbia. Now
what does the treaty Of 1918 do, and what are it.
limitations will read its Sd article:
"s agreed that any country that may be claimed by
Of the Stony mountains shall together with its harbor
bays and creeks and the navigation of all rivers whir
the be free and open for the term Of ten years from
date Of the signature Of the present convention to the
vessels citizens and subjects Of the two powers it being
the prejudice Of any claim which either OF the two high
contracting parties have any part Of the said
IL De 10 auect the claims OF othe
power any part of the said country the only
object of the high contracting parties respect being
prevent disputes and differences amongst themselves"
| This territory, then Is to be open for the pur
poses of trade to the citizens, vessels, and subjects
of the two high contracting parties. Now did tina
not leave either party free TO facilitate that trade by
every means in their power, whether by the cree.
ton of forts and stockades or by the protection Of
their emigrants going there, or by sending provis
ions there, or by any means known among civilized
1 e.. AZ MI IL
Of these be infringement Of the treaty stipulatons
Why, the gentleman from South Carolina contend.
ed that the erection Of forts there would be eouiva.
| lent to immediate declaration of war. differ
with the honorable gentleman. If they are erected
for the protection of the emigrant and to facilitate
trade, they are erected rightfuy under the
ton of 1897, which authorizes our government Ia
use every means to facilitate their own trade and
protect their citizens, but which do not prevent the
citizens, subjects and vessels of Great Britain from
a participation in the same privileges. Why have
not the British government erected forts there,
am aware that they have not done it by the act o'
| the government itself openly; but the gentleman
from South Carolina, as lawyer, is familiar with
the principle qui facit per alum, tacit per They
have done IL through the organization Of the Hud-
son Bay Company, in the same way they would
have done it in the Indies through the East India
Company. 1t is an organization, a perfect one
| whose government resides in London, and which
m ives as an unit, The Hudson Bay Company
have erected their forts in every part of that terrific
ry. Has government ever protested against ii
No. because they have erected them for the purposes
Of trade, and they had right to- consistently with
the provisions Of the conventions Of 1918 and 1927
And hold we clearly have the same right Of erect.
ing any forts or stockades we may think proper
either in Oregon or the route to Oregon, if oui
object be to protect citizens, facilitate theii
trade That treaty has not been prohibi,ory, bu
permssive, to both nations, giving them certain
rights and providing that the bays and rivers Of tha
country shall be open, first, for the term of ter
years, and then Indefinitely to the vessels citizens
and subjects of the two powers. | contend, there
FORE that there is nothing in The principal provision,
Of this bill which makes il amenable to the objection,
raised against it.
But have an objection Mr.. Chairman, to tn,
4th section of the bin. | contend that this bill
should be temporary in it's character and provision,
that it should do only what its title purpors to dc
that It should protect the rights Of American
settlers in Oregon until the termination of tn,
'iont occupancy" And WHY Because this "ioin
occupancy" is very difficult matter to legisat,
about. We require one system of legislation tc
protect citizens there during the continuance o