The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-28

by she transferred the whole northwest eoas 10 ms
and we claimed that such the factthat the ces-
sion CT Louisiana carried with il all Oregon Under
that claim whether good or bad land 10 this argu-
ment IL matlered little which, and our preyions
discovery we took possession Of the country under
the order Of our government; and the exploration
Of Lewis and Clarke was followed up by acts 81
possession by Mr. Henry and Mr.. Aston of the
country and OF the river, which was its chief and
most important feature. Mr.. Huskisson and Ad
dngton did not deny this transfer, but claimed that
the question had previously been disposed Of by the
treaty OF Nootka, and that they thus got rid Of the
force Of the transfer.
MIR. D. would show that it had no such effect.
The convention Of Nootka was abolished by the
war Of l796. France made the transfer in 1900
Spain in 1903, and we took possession in 1905, in
lso6, 10 1905, In 1910, and continued until 1918. BY
Englsnd's own showing the convention did not re-
viye, II at ALL all 1914; so that during the interval
while the treaty was null, we took possession Of
the country, and II was still ours.
But what do we find in relation to the Nootka
convention, from the account given Of il by Brit
sh writers themselves We find that the whole
OF the rights claimed by Great Britain within the
Oregon territory previous TO 1878 were founded up
on that convention. Notwithstanding all the efforts
Of her ingenious and powerful dipIomatsis, she
cannot make out the existence Of any other rights
than those which she received from IT, If she
has no rights guaranteed TO her by il, then she has
no rights whatever; for, il they cannot be found
there, they do not exist do not deny that her
subjects have rights; but she, as a government,
has none The first article Of the convention
provides that the buildings and tracts Of land stu
ated on the northwestern coast which had been Ia
ken from British subjects should be restored 10
them. The language Of the treaty is not that they
be given up TO the British government, but 10 Brit
,sh subjects By the second article a Just repsra-
ton was TO be made for all injuries arising from the
acts Of either BY the third article in order 70 pre-,
serve good understanding between the parties, il
was agreed that the respective subjects and citizens
Of both should not be disturbed or molesled in
carrying on their fisheries and their trade with the
natives. Spain was in possession by discovery,
and here was no waiver OF eminent domain.
Mr.. ID. called attention to this language for the
purpose Of showing the absence Of all intention or
expectation on the part OF the British government of
gaming any rights under this convention beyond
those guaranteed TO her subjeeu-the restoration
OF Mearess property--the privilege OF occupy
ing temporary haoltaiions on land for the pur.
pose Of carrying on trade with the natives; and
that those who yentured their properly up-
on the sea, in prosecution Of the fisheries
should not be molested. She always takes care
of her subjects, and Of their interests Would we
could say the same of our own government The
other articles Of the convention were not material
10 the view he was taking, though they all favored
the construction he commended for. .
Mr. ID. would now show what was the effect OF
the restoration OF Astoria in lsl5 under the treaty
Of Ghcnt Great Britain sometimes asserted a
claim by discovery. She insisted that she had rights
under the Nootka convention and all conceded thst
It was hers by conquest from 1913 until restored
She had one title, but from three sources which
were merged. In 1878 she restored Astoria, which
was restoration Of the country, without protest
pretencc of any claim whatever How, then, did she
divide her title again, and transfer portion TO us
and retain the rsaidus' He insisted that upon every
principle OF national law or common sense she
was cstopped from asserting any claim which she
now pretends had existence then.
Ii was evident that she had no confidence in her
claim, nor was any conntenanccd by the public men
Of that day. and Mr.. Clay, who was soon after Sec
rotary of State, in official paper declared she had
not the color Of title to any portion Of the terri
tory; -. ...a a.u
Though she had insisted upon some claim prev
GUS to the restoration under the Client treaty. Lord
Caselreagh, principal secretary in the foreign Office
declared that we were entitled to he fully rcs,orsd
and to be deemed the party in possession while
treating of the title. The fort and settlement wer,
restored to the government of the United States
as such. The restoration and acceptance were the
acts OF the respective governments through their
authorities. . ...-...- .a.-.,. 49,
The first article of the treaty of Client, under
which Astoria was restored, unlike the Nootka con-
vention, provided for the restoration TO this govern
ment; and under this provision, the country was
restored, not to individuals, but to the sovereignty
of the United States. We were then in full and
peacea6e possession by the consent and authority
Of the British government. We had successfully
defed her arms, and she had restored il without
even claiming possessory right; and at this time,
the whole world would have pronounced
our title clear and uaquestionable. .,. . ..a.
But in fourteen fatal days thereafter we entered
upon negotiation, and, as usual, fell prey to the
sapping and mining Of her diplomacy. The treaty
Of 1918, which it is commended is treaty for joint
occupancy, is not for that purpose, but q
treaty for permission to trade and to fish upon the
coast 1t gives to Great Britain no right to exercise
sovereignty. We were already in possession and
der the treaty Of 1918. The language o. that treaty
is worthy determination. Mr.. d. here read por-
ton Of the treaty, and then continued.l Now
where did Great Britain obtain her right to
exercise acts of sovereignty in that terrific
ryi Ii is said she is in actual occupation: per-
haps may be considered practical occupation, in
as her subjects are there, though by mere
permission, not by conquest, we being deemed in
possession. She has no more right to exercise any
act Of sovereignty in that territory under the Nootka
or the convention Of 1918, than
she has to exercise acts Of sovereignty within the
District Of Columbia. Suppose we should give the
subjects of Great Britain the right to navigate the
Potomac, or any other river in the United States;
would that give the right the government Of Great
Britain to acts of sovereignty there' Sup
pose we should authorize British subjects to trans
act certain business in the District Of Columbia: |
jurisdiction ...s ....s |
The honorable senator from Missouri few days |
ago, pleased to say that this the fruit OF
tbarren negotiation" Would to Heaven the nego- |
tiaton had been barren! |
Mr.. BENTON remarked that the negotiations had |
lasted thirty years; and he had designated them, |
therefore, aged and barren. .....
Mr.. DICKINSON continued. Pam glad II has been |
hus barren, and prepared to show that il ought
TO produce fruit, such is anticipated by Great
Britain. To return to the convention of 1915. |
Though gave rights whatever to the British gov.
srnment as such; il has been, as was well said
by the senator from Missouri, the source Of difficult
ly to us. But for that convention, we should now
be in peaceful and quiet occupation Of the territory
Il is that which has fortified the claim set up
by the British ncgotiators--which claim, as late
rs 1918, they did not consider worthy Of being |
sailed even possessory right, but which has
now grown into right Of which she cannot be
be deprived without war. What is the true
state Of her ute' Legally, not in occupation OF
he territory, with no rights as government,
though she assumes the right of extending the Ju-
risdiction Of her courts not only over her own
b,,t the whole territory, and over all