The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-17


beetle. The honorable senator rom Indiana, lMr,
HAssEGAs, has made an able and eloquent speech,
and in il he took occasion TO innuute that die south
was not so much for Oregon as they had been Tor
Texas. | not disposed to turn the tables, and
say that some gentlemen were not so much Tor
Texas as they for Oregon.
Mr.. HANNEGAN. Will the senator allow me
To say one word The time has now come when
should give the reason why was not so much Tor
Texas Both Texas and Oregon were united IN the
baltimore convention. But | dreaded ii Texas went
frst-I dreaded Punic faith. Yes, Punic faith.
Mr., CoLQUI1T. feel very much indebted to
the honorable gentleman for his explanation. lie is
an able statesman. But it happens that his reuet-
ance to act was before the Baltimore convention. J.
do not wish, however, to handy words. was very
much pleased with the argument Of the gentleman,
but do not like Here the speaker turned round 10
Mr.HAEsEGAs, and the remainder ofthe sentence was
lost 10 the reporter) The honorable senator in his
very able speech, relied the discovery by Spain,
and assumed il as a fact undoubled that the discovery
atone. without having been followed by settlement
and occupancy, a sufficient foundation for title
But this question arsesIs that Gettled doctrine OF
national lawI The senator argues that It Is. An
other question arses-f q discovery IL a suficient
foundation for title, must that discovery be made
under the sanction Of a government, or viii II be
stl sufficient, though made merely in the prosecu-
lion of individual enterprise These are questions,
and there are others also in this controversy, which,
although
vor Of the American side, yet ] must admit, as an
honest man and a statesman, are yet unsettled. Il
am compelled 20 admit, and II seems TO me that
every honorable senator must admit that these del
ieste and important questions have not been 50 well
settled as no longer TO remain open to debate
Again, when settlement Is made, what must be Its
character, in order 10 beneht the country from
which the settlers GOMEZ Is not that grave ques-
lion also involved Is il settled Is Il kxed' Is Il
debatable! Again how far from the locality where
settlement is made will an unquestionable title ex-
tendl Is not that also debatabls question: Is Il
not likewise involved in this controversy And
again, say, while my own feelings are favorable 10
the decision made by our Secretary of State, and
the argument urged Yesterday by the honorable
Ator from lndiana-whllst these are my own con-
viclions--l am compelled to admit that these
are grave questions Of international law, and facts
too involved in this matter on which honest men
may well differ before settling down into conyic-
Ion. | would not make these remarks would
not have felt myself called upon TO do so-but from
the character which the debate has assumed. Il has
been assumed that by the law Of nations the Spanish
title gives SO 4O; that discovery Is Of itself suf
eient TO give title against all the balance ofthe world.
Well, 1 have felt myself called upon to make some
remarks upon mat view Of the question; and will
now proceed to make another remark, and will offer
some observations TO strengthen IL. No matter how
strong my convictions may be with regard to the
validity Of our title, | am too well acquainted with
the strucu re oil the human mlnd not 10 Know that
my own individual feelings and wishes may have
some influence on my judgment. ! am too well
| acquainted with the feelings which sway the human
heart, not to admit that the feelings and wishes Of
the people Of the country in which live may like
| wise have some influence my judgment. There
| is no arbiter 10 whom submit--to whom We
| are willing 10 submit-in whose impartial judgment
we arc willing 10 confde. How, then, stands the
cssel Great Britain and the people Of the United
States put forth their claims, each in his court,
and each with his advocate and judge. And does
not every body that each putting his own con-
struetion upon international law, and upon facts,
| and persistng in IT, there is but one mode
Of settlement, and that will be by the sword.
Arbitration is out of the question. We cannot find
| an arbitrator in whom conhde. We claim
the neutrality-suspicious., ndispuable right to
| the whole country. We know that individual
cases, where there is arbiier tribunal up to
| determine the matter in controversy between the
two private individuals anywhere, that the man
| that refuses TO ompromise--nsisting upon the
whole extent-who claims Judgment for himself
determining for himself the extent Of his rghts,l
say that man gains the character, or may gain the
character Of obstinate courage, but inevitably loses
the prouder characteristic Of wisdem, justice, and
moderation. Now, have always thought that
since the discovery Of America the best settled
doctrine, though controverted, was, that discovery
was a sufficient foundation for title; or suppose
that it is not disputed provided il ia followed ur
there recognised in the natives the right Of occu
pancy; but the discoverer alone had the right o
making terms with the natives, either by conques
or purchase; nobody else could interfere The dis
coverer had this right, but held subject to the nav,
right Of occupancy. But say that if you recognise
the right Of the natives TO occupancy, settlement
could not he necessary to perfect the title. TIL,
grant was good, and you permit me to hold as lons
you choose; while the native remains there, you
respect his right occupancy but the dscoverer still
has, in my construction Of the law the right al amy
time, by conquest or purchase, TO carry out and
perfect his title. That hao been my position on tina
subject had thought that that was more or less
acquiesecd in according to the uaoges of European
nations. ] know very well that there have beer
some exceptions to this, but a general rule be
eve that this is correct. | think that the British
minister did well, in relying on the rights conferred
+ on, the British government by the Nooka Sound
| convention. Now whether that convention was alb
rogated by the war ofl796, as am inclined to think
1t was IL another question, for in general, treaties
are not, pso aco made void by war-especiaIly such
as make spulations for territorial rights not alb
rogated by war; but revive again the return oil
peace, unless some stpuations Of an after treaty be
repugnant to 1t.
Some contend that before the treaty of Nootks
sound, the British had as much right north of
the Spanish settlement Nootka as the latter had
| But am willing to agree with the Secretary OF
State in regarding it as commercial treaty. confer
| ring commercial privileges; and in that view, | am
not prepared insist that the war of 1896 did, or
did not abrogate it. But sir, another view pre-
sented by the senator yesterday Suppose it was
not abrogated, and that some rights or privileges
remained not destroyed by the war--such the
right Of fishing, of settling of carrying on com.
merce, Of navigation: row that they did acquire
these rights it is true; Of their value to them they
are the best judges; for not only in the debates of
the British Parliament, but in the speech of the king
HIMSELF he refers to the subject and calls attention
to the Of two British vessels which which were
captured by Spanish man-ofwar, their cargoes
taken possession Of and their crews brought prison.
ers into Spanish port. What did they demand
They demanded satisfaction for the violence COM
mitted; they demanded reparaon for the injury
tanned; and when they did SO, the Spanish govern
ment replied, awe have already done SO. Your
vessel and property has been restored and the vice.
roy of Mexico only did the act under the impress.
sion that you had made an infraction of Spanish
rights" On the second of November, in the same
year, We find from the debates in the British
Parliament that there was another communica-
ton from his Majesty TO the House of Com
rylntr In Ill,