American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1846-02-09
,Nr. Buchanan 10 Mr.. PackenhaN.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Mr.. Buchanan 10 ,Tr. PackenhaH.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, 4th Feb, 1916.
The undersigned, Secretary of State of the
United States, has the honor to acknow ledge
the receipt of the note of Mr.. Packenham, her
Britannia Majesty's envoy extraordinary and
minister pienipOtentary, dated on the 18th
ult., by which he again proposes a reference Of
the Oregon question to arbitration. Under his
present proposition, the powers Of the arbtra-
tor would not, as in his last, be limited in
terms to the division of the territory between
the parties, but would extend to the question
of their conflicting titles. There is, however,
a condition annexed to this offer which expo
ses it to tho same objection, in point of fact, if
not in form, which was prominently presented
in the answer Of the undersigned to Mr.. Pack
enham's last proposal. This condition is, 'that
If neither Lparty should be found, in the opin-
ion OF the arbitrator, to possess a complete title
TO the whole territory, there should, in that
case, be assigned TO each that portion Of ter
rtory which would, in the opinion Of the ar
bitTating power, be called for by just appre-
citation Of the respective Claims of each" If
the government of the United States should
consent TO an arbitration upon such Condi-
ton, this might, and probably would, be con-
strued into an ntimatlon, if not direct inyi-
tation, to the arbitrator TO divide the territory
between the parties. Were it possible for the
President, under any circumstances, to consent
to refer the subject to arbitration, the title, and
the title alone, detached from every other con-
sidsraton, is the only question which would
/ be submitted. lfnot confined to i singl c point,
so strong Is the natural disposition OF arbitra-
tors to please both parties, that III almost eve
ry instance, whether Of national or individual
controversies, they make a compromising a.
ward. We have a memorable example of this
in our last arbitration with Great Britain
Notwithstanding that the arbitrator, under the
terms of the submission, was clearly and eXpli-
city confined to the decision (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 riyer,and
actually divided the territory in dispute be-
tween the parties by "the middle of the deep
est channel Of the st. John's.'
The undersigned might content himself, in
answer to the proposition, with a reference to
the observations contained IN his last note to
MIR. Packenham of the Sd ult. In that, it was
plainly intlmatcd not only that theIe are 10th
or conclusive reasons for declining the prOpO-
siton," Independently Of the one which had
been prominently stated, but it was expressly
asserted as the belief of the President, ''that
any attempt to refer this question to Il third
power would only involve it into new difficult
ties"
The undersigned will, however, proceed to
state single reason which, apart from the in
trnsic difficulty Of selecting Il suitable arbLra-
tor, as well as other considerations that might
be adduced, is conclusive on the mind Of the
President against reference OF this question to
arbitration, III any form which can be devised,
no matter what may be the character OF the
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. sovereign, citizen, or sub
lect. This reason is, that he does not believe
the territorial rights of this nation TO be pro-
per subject for arbitration. 1t may be true,
that, under peculiar circumstances, if the in
terests at stake were comparative small, and
if both parties stood upon an equal footing,
there might be no insuperable objection to such
course. But what is the eytont Of territory
in dispute on the present occasion? 1t embra-
ces nearly thirteen degrees Of latitude along
the northwest coast Of the Pacific, and stretch
es eastward TO the summit of the Rocky noun
tains. Within its limits several powerful and
prosperous States of the Union may be cmbraC-
gu. 1t llCS contiguous, Oh tulS COulllchlI w
the acknowledged territory of the United
States, and is destined, at no distant day, to be
peopled by our citizens. This territory pre-
sents the avenue through which the commerce
of our western States can be proftably conduc-
ted with Asia and the western coasts of this
continent; and its ports, the only harbors be-
longing to the United States to " hich our nu
merous Whalers and other vessels in that region
can resort And yet, vast as are Its dimen-
sions, it contains not single safe and commo-
dious harbor from its southern extremity until
we approach the 10th parallel oflatitude.
1t is far from the intention of the undersgn-
ed again to open the discussion of the conflict
ing Claims Of the two powers to the Oregon
territory. 1t is sufficient for him to state the
continued conviction Of the President, that the
United States hold the best title in existence to
the whole of this territory. Under this con-
viction, he cannot consent 10 leopard for his
country all the great interests involved, and by
any possibility, however remote, to deprive
the republic Of all the good harbors on the
coast, by referring Tho question to arbitra-
ton.
Neither is the territory in dispute of equal,
or nearly equal, value to the two powers.
Whilst it is invaluable to the United States, it