Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-06-11


"a Russian charter gave the American company the
northwest coast of America from IS degrees to Behring'S
straits"
| He further says, in a letter to Mr. Middleton:
"You are authorized propose article Of the same
import for the Of ten for the Of 1in
convention between the United S'aess Great Britain, and
| Russia"
| He says, in the same letter to Mr.. Rush:
"lf the British Northwest and Hudson's Bay Company
have any posts the coast suggested the article in the
Quarterly Review, above cited, the third article OF the
OF the Goth OCTOBER 1918, applicable 10 them
Mr. Middleton authorized to propose an article Of similar
import to be inserted in int convention between the
United States, Great Britain, and Russia for tenn Of ten
years signature. You authorized make the
sane proposal the British governments and with view
to draw definite line of demaTcaton for the future to
stpulae shall hereafter be made the
northwest coast any Of the islands adjoining by Rus
sian subjects south Of latitude 50 deg by citizens Of the
United States north Of latitude 81 Deg Or ey British suoe'
"For it showed" says the honorable Senator from
Missouri in speech in 1912, that the British had
no rights on the northeast COAST 1t not until
we discovered the Columbia that she renewed her
claim to any territory the northwest coast" sour
title is good against England throughout the coast,
| DC.
This language is conclusive. 1t is obvious that the
whole northeast coast, Oregon is referred and
the parties claiming it recognized the United
States Great Britain and Russia. division of their
respective pretensons is proposed by east and west
lines, thus separating the region into three Districts
lying respectively north or south OF one another.
There is no difference in the description of their
claims. Insular continental, they all the
! in their eastern extension.
These proofs that the descriptive appellation north
ceSt coast applied generally TO the country north
Of California and west of the Rocky mountains,
might be multiplied almost indefinitely; but it is not
necessary the examples already given establishing
the fact beyond controversy. IT, therefore, the homo
rable Senator from Missouri seeks confine the cpl
het northwest coast TO the region within sight
| If. 81. e u. bo
sruction and inconsistent with the histor
cal geography Of the county we'll as with the rights
and intentions of the parties. Our northwest coast
! which is our Oregon, by the arrangement with
Russia cannot extend north OF $40 40 min. and her
northeast coast cannot extend south of that line
The longitudinal extent of either is question that
does not concern the other. Our claim in that direc
ton is from the Pacific 10 the Rocky mountains.
Russia since her treaty with US, has entered into
convention with England, by which she restricts her
4 claim TO an extent of ten marine leagues from tine
coast. Before that, she free to carry her title to
the Rocky mountains, the eastern boundary of the
northwest coast. This subsequent arrangement nei-
ther affects rights duties, and 54 deg. 40
mn is yet the barrier, beyond which we cannot pass.
What would be the condition of the parties if Rus
STA had formed no convention with England What
right should we then have to say, that the Russian
preensions do not extend over the whole of the
try of the northwest coast but limitel to ten
marine leagues from it !! None whatever. And how
can subsequent convention between other parties
regulate prior instrument, 10 which we party
When we made an arrangement with Russia, our
country of the northwest coast stretched to the Rocky
mountains. We promised that power that we would
not pass the parallel of 81 deg 40 min. in north
ward progress. What right have to say that Rus
STA did mean by the same descriptive words what
meant, that that power did not assert any claim
over the country designated by them The northwest
for her, says the honorable Senator, is the is
lands adjacent to 1t; while for us, it is the whole
country to the Rocky mountains Our duties to
be Judged by existing circumstances, and not by sub
sequent arrangements between different parties. With
the motives of Russia, the consideration which
England gave her for the cesson, have
Had the former power ceded her whole claim to the
latter, obligations would have remained the
The benefit being transferred to England, instead of
being held by Russia, 81 deg. 40 min. we said 10
Russia is line In the country of the northlceS
coast And there hope shall be found.
But, if the honorable Senator from Missouri should
succeed in the establishment of his position that
not bounded the north by this parallel of 54 deg
40 min, do not see that the little band is In any
worse condition, the pretensions of the country
all Administrations the former to be intimately
connected with the latter; but quite the contrary
In that event, should fall back upon original
Spanish title and carry our claim to the parallel Of
81 deg. Our arrangement with Russia was an agree
ment to take less than the claim could rightfully
urge, as the grantees of the Spanish government.
The honorable Senator, in the farther prosecution
of his argument, that have claim TO fifty-fou
forty says that offered that line to Russia, as he
southern boundary, and to England her northern
He then refers to the proposition made by Mr. Rush
who offered 81 deg as our northern boundary, anC
says seek to go jam up to 81 40, after the
} offer of 81, which was refused by England.
Why sir, all this history of the negotiation is wei
known, and must confess l do not its bearing
upon the peculiar views presented by the Senator
He is seeking show the inconsistency of the Ameri
can government in urging claim to 81 40, afte
having offered to accept the parallel of 81 deg as ou
northern boundary. But why select this offer for this
purpose! We have made much more favorable one
for England, which she has than once refused
We have offered 40 deg, and late the last
If these changes proofs of inconsistency, the las
being the greatest furnishes the strongest evidences
of it. | repeat, sir What new view is present by
going back to the offer of MIR. Rush in 1923, wher
that of Mr.. Buchanan in 1916, yielded two degree.
more of latitudel
But there not the slightest inconsistency, then
is there This branch of the subject has beer
L already fully debated and have no disposition tC
renew the discussion. These offers all offers d
compromise, made in spirit of concession, and NO
. the assertion of claim; and when rejected, the
party making them at full liberty to urge Its
whole title unembarrassed by these efforts at concilia
ton, and without being obnoxious to the charge o
inconsistency And this recognized and distinctly
stated to the British government by Mr. Gallatin il
1927, who said, that his government did not holt
itself bound hereafter, in consequence of any proposal
which it had made for line of separation between
the territories Of the two nations beyond the Rocky
mountains, but would consider itself at liberty tC
contend for the full extent of the claims OF the United
States" Here, sir the American government, il
1897 maintained that the offers thus made and rejected
: did not reach to the extent Of their full claims, bu
that being rejected, at liberty to fall bach
= OurO lU fhoSa affan