The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-13

Of the kings Of Eng land just in the same words as
you ind il in the charter Of Alexander vi to Spain
IL was agreed in by them ALI and there - the foun-
dation Of all the title of Europeans TO any portion
OF this continent Ii is by acquescence IN these
grants, hrst by the popes, and Afterwards by the
kings OF England. Sir, they are all good for moth,
ing. But still believe that we hold this spot OF
earth IN which you sit IN that chair on no better IL
tie, tracing II back to its origin, mean. We claim
possession of this land by grants Of kings Of Eng
land 10 the colonies OF Virginia and Maryland, pre-
eisely OF the same nature the grant Of Pope Alex
ander TO Spain. Well, when | addressed the com
mttee before on this question, ! did undertake TO
show the origin -four tile land and quoted from
Genesis, lst chapter, 26th to 3Oth verses, some
what to the surprise and astonishment of many
members Of this House; and, TO my great surprise,
find it has been considered by the public journals
as being something novel, new. Well, suppose
resort 10 higher authority Here (said MIR. A., taking
up an antique looking book from under his table, is
authority which believe no lawyer will question.
This no other than Grotus, the first great founder
Of the theory of International law. ask the clerk
TO read short paragraph Of that.
The clerk read accordingly:
"God gave to mankind in general dominion over
all the creatures Of the earth from the hrst creation
Of the world, grant which renewed upon the
restoration of the world after the deluge."
After the word "deuge," (said Mr.. A. be SO
good as to look at the note below.
The clerk read this note
only resorting CONTINUED he) to "hgher" authority
than that which gave here before upon this ques-
ton Sir, this Is a writer on the law Of nations.
III anybody viii look into Blaekstone's common
tsries which have not before mel at the I'd page,
I'd VOL, they will find the declaration with
the same authority cited. Now i ask if my author
~ was novel; or If il not sufficient That these
titles, both Of the Pope, and Of the European King
might have been the subject Of controversy and ne
goustion between them for centuries, is Of no
avail at all. For he said that primitive original
utle the title Of Pope Alexander just as good
that Of any king or queen of England, from Eliza.
beth, or from Henry VII.
What, then, does title rest upon Discovery ex-
ploraon, settlement continuity, eontiguity treaty
all these are matters Of fact not Of right There is
not particle OF right in any one Of them. There
must be prior title Of rghl and that prior title can
not be traced to any other than that Of God
Almighty, in the lst chapter of Genesis say this
rather az an apology for my having referred TO this
authority heretofore.
But setting this all aside what the value Of the
charters Of the kings Of England was, you may
infer from these two commissions TO the governor OF
Georgia, issued one in l76l embracing tho line to
the South sea, and the other in l764, only three
years afterwards revoking it with conscious admis-
sion that they had not right to extend their claims
there and extending 1t las far as" the territories Of
the king Of England extend, which to the Mis-
sssppL
Now, is not this disposal Of title on the part Of
Great Britain to any territory whatsoever on the
shores Of the Pacifcl II so, how came she to have
, title now. She had renowned formally, inferriby
renounced, and in every form renowned title to one
inch Of territory west OF the Mississippi.
, What becomes Of the next ute' He meant the
} title by discovery by Mearesl This was a matter
fact, and this reference to discovery, exploration
! &c, did not settle the right at ALL Nothing could
settle the RICH! but actual possession, and that
what he was for taking now Of this disputed terri
tory. want (sad he) possession Of it now be-
I cause want it. In the year 1918, when we
treated with Great Britain this subject we offered
her to take the latitude Of ago for boundary and
allow her the navigation of the Columbia river
Why, our own title to the Columbia river was then
, disputed by Spain. We had gone and discovered the
s Columbia without inquirng what was the value Of
Pope Alexander's grant, any more than any other
1 grant We had discovered and partly explored the
l. Columbia river, and had made a settlement on
o it at the mouth of that river. But when we made
that convention with Great Britain, (as was say.
d ing when was cut off at the close Of my hour
e when last addressed the House on the subject) in
n 1918, when we made this convention, we stipulated
/, that would not make settlement north aud south
o Of that line Of ago, but that the country shoud
e be open to navigation, commerce, and trading with
!, the Indians for 10 years.
Well, sir, what were our rights them We had
the right Of claim by discovery Of the Columbus
e river and settlement made upon it; and that settle
,l ment had been taken conquest during the wal
quence of stipulation to that effect, restored to u,
property after The conclusion Of peace But ir
h that convention of 1878, il was merely stipulation
?, that should not make settlements-that is, tina
~ we should not occupy, and that stipulation
was binding upon Great Britain as we'll as upon US
e 1t not only total MISSIONER, but total perver
?, sion of the whole question of right to call tina
N convention convention OF oint occupation;
/ was convention Of non. occupation. Ant
h in making this convention with Grea, Britain
stipulated formally to reserve the right of "any
third power" that is say, the right of SPAIN fo
p. no other power but Spain had any claim. And i
T was reserved in the convention of l8l8-as Mr.. A
n showed when he was up before, from the words o
the convention itself-that the year after that SPAR
ceded to all her right upon the whole ofthat coas
At from AGO north Those rights, then, which we hat
- reserved, by compact with Great Britain, in thu
convention of 1918, all transferred to us; ant
is when, in 1927, we came to renew that convention
e for an indefinite period, it made in the SAM
e form the convention Of l8l8 eaping out the reser
pdon, and thereby, on the part of Great Britain a
e well as ourselves, admitting that the United State
were entitled to all the claims and pretensons o
+ Spain.
d But there was another circumstance which he dit
n intend at that time to have adduced; and had no
n this debate been sprung upon him by surprise, h,
is would have had the opportunity to show here tina
1t Great Britain claims a new title to part of Thu
n territory Of Oregon-of which she insists upon tn
v lions half-this Nootka sound convention of 1890
d That Nootka sound convention, the origin o
the claim of Great Britain upon it, had been full,
: exposed in very admirable speech by one of tn
e senator's from New York in another place, Fl,
n had shown what the moral right Of the claim
/. of Great Britain founded upon any discovery O.
IS settlement by Meares-tha, Meares was a super
cargo, he believed, or, at least, was employed OF
j. board vessel fitted out at Macao, China under
Portuguese flag, and with Portuguese owners, ant
n with no authority from any other power. 1t wal
n an expedition contrary to the laws of China; contra
ry to the laws of England, invading the privilege
c the East India Company; contrary to the laws o
SPAIN and in the instructions given to the captain o
It that ship to this Meares, they were instruct
l. ed il molested at all by English vessels to take then
prizes; so far were they from having any author
il ity from the English governor. 1t was indeed true
that, under this protection of Portuguese authority
there were certain English traders in Macao, China
who were owners of the property embarked in this ex
y petition. They went to Nootka sound, and they me
there two vessels of the United States one of which
I,raa Had hoT ,l,,. al II