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


mind in America, and 10 prepare the public mind in
England. How America felt in view or Mr. Paken-
hams last o6r, the Presidents message showed
| very clearly How America would receive pro-
Posal like Mr. Gallatin's, was the point in question
III such proposal shall be made then the state OF
the controversy will be TO some extent varied and
we have no doubt that IL will then be managed, as
II should he managed with the same unshrinkng
hrmness and the same scrupulous regard of our
rights which have marked the progress of the affair
thus far in the hands of the present administration.
We allude to this point for moment, because we
perceive that gentleman on the floor of Congress
has gone so far as to quote US saying that such
proposal to US would he "fair and reasonable. "
We said no such thing. If the gentleman referred
to viii read over our article he will that did
not On the contrary, we sad-and that too almost
| IN terms-just the reverse. Whether that proposal
II made by England at first in conciliatory spirit
and IN disposition to admit our rights, might,
or might not, lead 10 something better calculated
10 secure our just rights afterwards, is another
question We do not propose to answer it. Bot
this we will say, that il England should make that
proposal, and should find the administration, az we
fully believe and trust she would find il, just firm
and as scrupulous for all rights as she finds the
President to be in his message-if, moreover, she
should then find the policy of the message fully car
ried out as we hope il will be carried out by Con-
gress-notice, emigration, naval preparations, and
aI-then we should not despair that England might
after taking such first step, the necessity Of
abandoning, step by step, claim so wholly base
less a. her claim is, rather than to disurs for ends
OF manifest injustice, the peace Of the world.
In conclusion, then, on this point, we will only
say, that strongly believing, from internal evidence
and from the facts we have mentioned, that The
articles in the Times" were written under Official
advisemsnt, we have recently been fortified in that
conviction by evidence Of a private but authentic
character, proving that the opinion as to the
character Of those articles is entertained in high and
influential quarters in England. II, riar Of this i'm
pOrfam fact, any failure The part Of Congress fully 10
sustain the 'rhois position taken by the Prtsidsnt in his
message, cannot be too seriously deprecated
The argument in the "Times's" article remains to
he disposed of and il may be disposed Of SUMMARY
ly. IL brings not one new element into the discus
sion. II is intended solely to make the proposal ug
gs'ted (Mr. Gaatin's) appear fair and reasonable
summed up in one word-adyoiinsss. We are not
surprised that the argument OF the Times" should
have been considered in many quarters, both here
and in England, plausible than the reasoning of
Mr.. Pskenham. Mr.. Pakenham was, by his situa-
ton negotiator, forced TO meet som,ho,o tpe,y
point IN a case, all the strong points of which were
hopeiessiy against him; to say nothing Of the NEST
mastery and victorious ability with which Mr.
Buchanan brought them to bear. The Times
on the contrary, beforehand of the convictions
Of its audience, and speaking for proposal which
made, to some extent, issue, perfectly at
liberty to dOds, nll the ipregnabs preliminary posi-
tions Of the controversy, and TO throw its whole
force upon the actual oinf occupafon Of the terri
tory, in so far as IL jointly occupied both under
the Nootka convention by Great Britain and Spain,
and afterwards under the convention Of 1913 by |
~---i-- - Ga. p-:.-i- 10 .-u,,i,, d. "a.
nec conclusion, the 'sTmes' has the advantage of
seeming, at first sight, 10 adhere most vigorously to
the point in dispute while, in reality, it leaves the
true pointthat is, the original title to the territory
almost wholly out of view 1t is simply the logi- |
clans old trick-a false statement Of the question
no more.
To show how far the Times is forced, by its bad |
case to carry this system of "urtfuldodgng, we will
note some of the points in its argument. The first
stumbling block in its way s our title from Spain |
To get rid of this the Times begins by dscrediting
first discovery a source Of title. Then passing |
the successive Spanish discoveries
and explorations, it makes what stand it can, in |
passing, upon the voyages of Cook and Vancouver,
and then bringing strongly out the settlement of
Meares at Nootka--a settlement, by the way, of
mere usurpation which, such, Spain promptly
suppressed it comes to the N6otka convention into
WHICH Spain was thereupon, as Lord Sandwich
said, 'bullied" by Great Britain. Not a word is
said of the express acknowledgment of the sover-
eighty of Spain that region by Russia, the only
po,cer having any settlements the north,cest coast
which acknowledgment was made in the fullest terms
before the date of the Nooka convention as appears
by the letter of June 10th, 1870, written by Count
Nunez to Count de Montmorin Not word is
said of the omission in the convention of single
phrase purporting TO eede to England one. particle
of the Spanish sovereignty, so claimed and acknowl-
edged. Not word is said of the temporary
character and purpose Of that convention nor of its
abrogation by the war of 1885, though these consd-
eraons stood out before the Times in letters of light
on the page of Mr.. Buchannan's letter. No; all
these matters were quite from the purpose of the
Times which was to hurry on to the "joint occupa-
strange eafsea under the two conventions and by
reckless than any we have seon on'sa'on-more
ceptiag always the astounding performances N az.
way of Lord John Russell, in his speech Of April
astthis point Of joint OCCUPANCY is reached at last
And, thon, Just az if the British government had
gone straight into possession of Oregon, as soon as
the Nootka convention was made in 1870, the Times
begins to talk Of the British joint occupancy Of sirfy
years. as against the .7merican joint occupancy of
thirtu years. from the date Of Mr.. Astors establish
nent at Astoria This is really fair statement of
the substance of the Times's logic In restating it we
have only omitted its adr0iinsss Then, with an os-
eutaton of fairness the Times admits that the greater
n,ber Of the American population of Oregon should
be copsdercd in the division of the territory though