The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-08-06
THE DAILY UNION.


crowded around him, filling up the area in front Of
the Speaker, lnsomueh that in the course of his
remarks they were twice called to order, and
II was insisted by the chairman Gin behalf Of those
i few gentlemen who remained in their sents) thai
the area should be cleared In accordance with the
rule Under these circumstances the reporter regrets
that but very little Of what he said reached his
desk.
He was understood to refer TO a printed bill he
held In his hand, reported time since from the
Committee on Territories, which fixed the boundary
north al the line of $40 40 and TO inquire OF the
| chairman OF the Committee on Territories why the
| boundaries were not also specified in this bR.
| Mr.. DOUGLASS (Mr, A. ylelding) said he sup
posed the boundaries were definitely fixed by the
bill The bill said that all that part Of the territory
of the United States which lies west Of the summit
Of the Rocky mountains be, and the same is here
ritory OF Oregon. The southern boundary is fixed
definitely by treaty with Mexico the northern
boundary is liked definitely, we are Informed by
the Pr sdent, by treaty with Great Britain; the
western boundary, Of course, is the Pacific ocean;
and the eastern boundary is set out in the bill.
suppose therefore, OF course, there can be no ques-
ton as to boundary.
Mr. ADAMS said he was reading from the print
ed bill before him, in which the boundaries were
expressly laid down, being the south and by the
AID degree Of latitude, on the east by the summit
Of the Rocky mountains, on the north by the line
| OF Of~ W, anu on the west ny the racine ocean,
These boundaries were defined with great precision.
| He should have been happy if they had been 80
settled that the chairman could have now reported
the same boundaries.
Mr.. DOUGLASS would have been equally
happy if he could have reported the same boun.
daries under the treaty stipulations.
Mr. ADAMS insisted that the boundaries should
be defined by the bill, and that if they were left to
the construction Of treaties by the government Of
Oregon, 1t would lead 10 confusion and perhaps TO
conflict with foreign governments
| Mr. DOUGLASS remarked that the present bill
stood in regard TO boundaries precisely the same
bill which this House mad passed during the pres
ent session. and sent 10 the Senate.
Mr. PETIT was understood 20 say that the
President had sent IN the treaty which had been
lately ratified this morning.
| Mr. ADAMS further contended that the describ-
ing it all the territory Of the United States west
| Of the Rocky mountains not saying what the
boundaries were and 1t appeared to him that il was
| not safe for them to enact anything so indefinite.
The boundaries should be described A reference
TO existing treaties was authority whatsoever to
the governor government Of the Territory Of Ore
gon now established. When constituted govern
ment over a territory we defined the boundaries OF
that territory, so that the government established
there might know how far they might claim iurs-
dctiOn, and how far they might not so as to avoid all
cause Of quarrel. He hoped therefore that the bill
would be so amended as To describe the boundari
For, after all, there might be question what the
boundary is under the treaty We have not seen
the treaty. The gentleman Mr.. PErrIrl SAYS il has
been communicated 10 the House this morning but
II has not been printed, and know nothing Of
what are the boundaries established by except by
rumor.
He understood it not clear what the real oh.
legations Of the treaty we're For instance: at the
time the treaty ratified here it was stated in the
newspapers that the navigation Of the Columbia
river granted 10 the British Hudson Bay Com
pany, and British subjects trading herewith. only
during the existence Of the present charter of that
company. 1t is stated in the British papers that
this is erroneous and that the grant is permanent
There is a great difference. And | confess (contn-
ued Mr.. A il was consolation TO me for that
present which we have made of six degrees
ofatitude to Great Britain that the remainder Of
the sentence was lost to the reporterl Now, q
permanent right TO The navigation Of the Columbia
river on the part Of Great Britain is one of the
things to which | would never have assented.
hope it is not hope at least that the treaty is
such that hereafter maintain--yes main
tain TO the last moment, that the navigation Of the
Columbia by Great Britain shall be temporary If
not would 90 ss 10 ss1 Win
than agree to the permanent navigation by her Of the
Columbia river. Sir ut very early period Of the
session declared my firm belief of the right Of the
United States to the boundary on the line of $40
40 north Ii was not a new idea to me; for wears
9th Congress-.a wing Congress- had the honor
of being a member Of a committee of which Mr.
William Cost johnson was chairman, and in a re-
port made to this House that position was dis
tincty taken by the nine members of that commit
tee.
Great Britain, in my opinion, had no claim to one
inch Of the territory she has now received We
have given to her present the navigation of the
Columbia river, together with Quadra island THAT
is the right name, though some call it Vancouver's J
We have not adhered to the line which was the
fighting line of the forty nnes-we have given her
| a part of the territory south of 49o.
But this course Of remark was, perhaps not en-
tirely pertinent TO the bill under consideration His
objection to that bill that it did not precisely de-
fine the boundaries of the Territory
Mr.. PETIT interposed, and wished the gentle
man from Massachusetts TO give his opinion whether
the grant of the navigation Of the Columbia river to
Great Britain was a permanent or merely tempo
rary grant
Mr.. ADAMS. | would answer the gentleman
from Indiana with great pleasure if had seen the
treaty. but have not | know the representation
made Of 1t in the newspapers here-among others,
in the organ of the administration, the Union-in
which it said to be emporary--during the exist
ence Of the Hudson Bay Company's present char
ter, which terminates in 1S58-and not permanent.
But / have observed in the newspapers that Sir
Robert Peel, in giving an account of that treaty,
says that grants to them the positive right of nav
lgduon Oh inc Coiuthpla Perpetut ny. therefore l
am unable to answer the gentleman from Indiana,
which would do with great pleasure, especially if
the true state of the according the repre-
senation Of it made here--tha is to saw temporary
and only during the existence of the present charter
Of the Hudson Bay Company.
As said before, hope that the phraseology is
such as will at least allow US to put in claim as in
chancery suit. | hope that the chairman Of the
Committee on Territories, or some other gentleman,
will move an amendment to define the boundary Of
that Territory. If there is question to what the
boundaries are hope this bill will lay them down
distinctly. But the gentleman from Illinois, the
chairman Of the Committee on Territories, if we
judge by the indefinite expressions ofthe BILL leav-
ing it to be inferred only how far north the terrific
ry extends, seems to be ashamed of the boundary
which by treaty we have obtained. That boundary
cuts US off from the harbors Of Puget sound; those
harbors which were described as so valuable and
essential to commerce on the Pacific by gen
tleman from Indiana, whom | see near me- Mr..
OwEN.l In his speech on the Oregon question he
spoke in strong terms on this subject.
Mr.. OWEN (Mr. A. yieding) said, it is true
that spoke in the strongest terms Of the safety,
and of the value 10 us NJ the future owners of Ore