Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1846-03-07
THE ADMINISTRATION AND ARBITRATION.
[rnoa Qua DAILY rArEn OF wrDsnsDAr.l

From the temper oil the article in the government
paper Of Saturday last, we yesterday inferred the
determination Of the Administration to stand mute
upon the merits Of their refusal Of the twce-proer-
ed reference Of our difference with England con-
corning the Oregon boundary to arbitration. But
in the g Union" Of Monday night published yes
terday morning) we find an argument on the ques-
ton, evidently from different hand from that which
penned the preceding article of the +" Union on
the same subject The only part Of the argument
Of the government paper which appears to us to
deserve particular attention is that which is con-
tanned in the following concluding paragraphs
"Thai Government is alike authorized and required by
the law Of nations to maintain its rights with frmnes but in
spirit Of peace and Of Justice that in this spirit is bound
70 consider the various mild methods Of terminating its
ovcy and to have 10 that mode TO those modes
which it shall Deem upon due deiberaton, best fitted
and preserve its rights without attack upon the
rights Of others that in the selection Of such mode
ton free to exercise lis honest discretion and have
all due regard the Of its controversy to the extent
of its right the and justice Of the opposing claim
its peculiar constitution, circumstances and interests
and to reject arbitration mediation compromise,
whenever either Of these modes Of procedure shall to its
own candid and careful judgment unwise or unsuablea
this elementary, automatic, rudimenta in the law of
tons. Men think of arguing to prone these first
principles than they make argument TO show that the
FIRST letter Of the alphabet.
"But there is one sanction Of national procedure such
matters which nation great enough wholly to disregard
That sanction Is found in the approving moral Judgment of
those men, and Of those assembages Of in other nations
whose study and opportunity and dnteestedness have made
competent and impartial judges This sanction the
Of the American Government in rejecting arbitration the
Oregon question has already received In the French Cham
Der of Deputies the highest moral and political tribunal Of
continental Europe the relations Of England and the United
States have been extensively and thoroughly discussed
Throughout that discussion the fact tan for granted
oreGnd-bcfore the action of our Government oas kOaon
that offer Of arbitration oouH not be, and could not be,
from the nature Of the case, accepted From the speeches in
the French Chamber, which have published, and from
those which we intend in day to publish, shall
show that what we now assert is true to the letter
These paragraphs are in far different spirit
from that in which the friends of the President and
the Secretary of State have yet spoken, through the
press, on this subject; and we receive with an inn
proved opinion Of their real intentions the admis-
sions which the first Of them contains. The adj
mission for example, that it is the duty of nations
to maintain their rights in spirit Of peace and
Justice that they are bound to consider the various
{. mild methods" OF terminating controversies in
which they are engaged, and % have recourse 70
that which appears to be most expedient, are con-
cessions Of what the government paper itself has
hitherto denied. Witness the following remarks
on the subject in the Union" of the l3th of last
month, repeated and rc-asseverated in the pa
per Of the 10Th Of the month:
q Under the perry most favorable circumstances,
4 Arbitration must always be an ercepfionable and
|. Suspicious mode of adjusting territorial ques-
fions,, &C. In view of all these facts,
i resort TO arbitration by our Government on
question like the question of Oregon, seems to be
|. a responsibility which no Administration, mindful
of its relations and its duties to the people, can
/ permit itself in any manner to assume
The Inconsistency Of such doctrine as this, re-
cognising no obligation of this Government under
the law of nations, with the express recognition Of
that obligation now made in the same paper, must
be too obvious to need to be dilated upon. We are
happy to find this error of total disregard of the
law of nations, which we endeavored to expose,
now explicitly acknowledged by the authority Of
the press and party which promulgated it. Had
the same language been held heretofore in the same
quarter, we should certainly have held our tongue
on the subject.
The qualifications, in the paragraph quoted above,
of the duty Of nations to consider and choose from
among the mild methods of terminating contro-
versies seem to refer to an objection which has
been taken to subjccting question of territorial
right to arbitration, 1.-THE next prescribed mode to
negotiation.) There is one answer to that objec-
ton which appears to us to be conclusive. No one
pretends that territorial rights may not be made the
subject of adjustment By negotiation That is
the mode of adjustment which the present Admin
sration has freely resorted to- and to decline which,
in case of conflicting claims of right between ma
tons, would be tantamount to an act of war. What,
then, we ask is negotiation, but arbitration by and
befsceen interested and antagonist parties? And
in what conceivable aspect is such arbitration less
wise or less likely to lead to a just and peaceful
result than arbitration By disiteresfed and mutual
friends?
AS. for the second Of the paragraphs which we
have quoted above, il is curious enough to see an
appeal made by the organ Of the Executive from the
principles Of public law, embodyng the wisdom Of
ages, transmitted by nation to nation and carefully
handed down unchanged from generation to genera
ton in all the nations Of Christendom, to random
opinions expressed in debate in the French Cham
Der Of Deputies. The "yUnion" might as well APP
peal to the late debate in our own House Of Repre-