The banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1844-1847, 1846-04-15
Abbeville G. III, S. G. April Is, 1916.

opaln whlch we now so gravcly aSScrtE
Let the grounds on which we based our
title to the valley of the Columbia in
1918, and on which we now distinctly
and emphatically rest that title, answer.
We then held it in contempt, and put it
at defiance. What was our appreciation
of this Spanish title in 1928, when we had
held it since 1892 Why, sir. we sur
rendered TO tho demands of the Empc-
ror Of Russia tho country between 81
degrees OF latitude and 81 degrees and
~ minutes, which was covercd-cvcry
rood of it-by this Spanish claim.
What, MIR. Chairman, had Spain
done from 1890 to 1919, when she
transferred her claim 10 the United
States her pretcnsions TO this territory,
to give to them dc(nitcncss and validi-
,y? So far from making settlements,
she had actually abandoned every ira
ding factory north of the 10th degree of
latitude prior 10 the year 1900. From
that period to the ccssion 10 the United
States, not an act was done by Spain to
consummate her claims or assert her So
vercignty.
proceed. Mr Chairman, to inquire
whether our government has not, by tho
most solemn and explicit declarations
and acts, recognised the rights which
Great Britain had asserted against
Spain, not only before, but since we ac-
quircd the rights Of Spain to this terrific
ry? In 1918, before the treaty Of Flori-
da, by which we acquired whatever
rights Spain possessed, we proposed to
make the forty-ninth parallel OF latitude
the boundary between the territory
claimed by the United States and that
claimed by Great Britain west Of the
Rocky mountains. Great Britain con-
tested our exclusive claim to the valley of
the Columbia river, which we had urged,
and declined to accede to our PROPOSE
ton. The treaty of 1918 was the result
of this Intellectual attempt to agree upon
boundary. What was that conven-
tion2 The gentleman from Massachu.
sctts mr. Adams] the other day denied
that it was treaty of joint occupancy.
But il am not greatly mistaken, that
gentleman, at the last session, characte-
rized it a treaty of joint occupancy.
We then heard nothing of the hypercri,
ticism of the chairman Of Foreign Rela-
tions, [Mr. G. J. Ingersoll,l who now con-
ours with the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts. Although that convention is
treated in all our negotiations as one of
Joint occupancy, the material inquiry is,
what does it concedc to Great Britain?
Are not its stipulations mutual and re-
ciprocal? Is there solitary right re-
served to the United States that is not
reserved to Great Britain? Is there
privilege guaranteed to one party, which
is not conferred on the other? Is there
n protest as to the one, which does not
apply to the title of other2 This con-
vention was adopted for the period of ten
years, during which the respective
claims Of the two governments were sus-
pended.
In 1919, we acquired all the rights
which Spain then had to this territory
and from 1923 to 1927 held negotiations
with Great Britain, the sole object and
purpose of which was the adjustment of
'tAS oouhooly' " hot, Oh, nave oui Ao-
gotiators and statemen said of the con-
vention of 1878? Mr.. Clay, Secretary
of State during the administration of MI.
Adams, in his letter to Mr.. Gallatin, the
minister to England, on the 10Th Of June,
1926, says: "It is true that the third
article of the convention of 1918 recog-
nizes that Great Britain then had claims
on the northwest coast, but it neither de-
fines nor settles them, nor specifies
where they had their origin" Mr. Gala
tin, in his despatch to Mr.. Clay, of the
25th of November, 1926, rcciting his
conference with the British plcnipoten-
tiaries, says: "But our never having
refused to agree to line of demarka-
ton with Great Britain, was sufficient
proof that we admitted that she also had
claims which deserved, and to- which
we paid due consideration" "Clai-
ming themselves by right Of discovery
and settlement, they allowed what was
due TO Great Britain on the same ac-