Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-06-18
not have existed if this discovery had been then

could not have existed if this discovery had been then
made.
So would this question stand if Spain had been
party to the treaty of Utrecht or Lad been bound BY
any arrangement made by France and England, for
the establishment of line between their respective
territories But the fact is, that any such arrange
ment for the partition of the country west OF the
Rocky mountains was impossible, from the circum-
stances of the times ard from the position Of those
three powers. The treaty of Utrecht terminated the
long and bloody war which arose out of the Spanish
succession. Louis XIV. succeeded in placing his
grandson Philip v. upon the throne Of Spain. France
and Spain closely connected, and had fought the
war together. They allies, and the enemies Of
England. The Spanish jealousy of that and Of the
following age, respecting the Spanish possessions,
especially those upon the Pacific is well known; and
at that time, other power interposed an adverse
claim to that region. 1t is utterly Incredible, that in
such state of things, France would consent TO the
extension of the British possessions to the northwest
coast and least of ALL that she would make herself
party to such fragrant act of injustice. 1t not
single treaty of Utrecht which put an end to the
war. There were different treaties formed. The one
between France and England was a treaty OF peace,
and also treaty for the regulation OF commerce
and for the establishment Of boundaries. That be-
tween Spain and England a treaty of peace and
commerce only and contained no stipulatons
speciing boundary. An effort by France and England
to divide the conntry upon the northwest coas.
act of war. Instead Of any such effort, this pre-
tension of their right TO appropriate to themselves
country unknown to them, now seriously asserted IN
the American Senate, has been unrevealed to the
world till called into existence at this late day, and
announced without any real evidence to support It.
means Of settling controversy about limits, IN
region which neither France England had explored
and to foot of which they never laid claim.
shall briefly allude to one other topic, and then
abandon this discussion. While was happy to hear
the honorable Senator his determination to sup
port the recommendations of the President in his
annual message at the commencement of the present
session on the subject Of Oregon, deeply regretted
to find, the time, that in the far most impor
point, he differs essentially from the President,
and proposes course which, ii seems to me, Is not
only impoltc aud unusual but which will necessarily
lead the loss of ono half of the country in dispute,
and may lead to a division of the other half. The
President proposes the assertion of our Jurisdiction
over Oregon. The honorable Senator proposes its
assertion over only about moiety of Oregon.
This is a fundamental difference, which argument
reconcile. The extent of the Oregon of the Presl-
dent is known TO all of 1t is the Oregon which
exetes such deep solctude among the American peo-
pie. 1t is bounded north by the parallel of 81 deg.
40 min. as announced by Mr.. Buchanan in letter to
the British minister, dtcd July r. 1915. 1t is the
same Oregon which is claimed by the British, and
which they have extended their jurisdiction But
the Oregon of the honorable Senator stops at 49-hs
line dividing what neither nature nor political rights
destined to a division.
And why, sir why does the honorable Senator, in
opposition to the repeated declarations of the Ameri-
can government, and to the strong feelings Of the
American people, erect barrier upon the parallel of
40, saying, Thus far you may come but further
4 Why does he insist upon legislative annunciatIJn
which, while 1t could not give the country to that
parallel would forever deprive US of all hope of the
country beyond If this question is placed upon the
ground of expediency and if that artificial line upon
the surface Of the globe is assumed reasonable
line of compromise-reaSo because dividing the
country into two nearly equal parts, and because il
has been several times offered by the American gov
eminent TO the British government, limit of con
cesslon-then find no fault with those who take this
view of the matter and who propose thus to terminate
the controversy. He who believes that both parties
have an equal title to the territory IN question: tina
any obligation is created by offers of compromis
heretofore made and rejected, may well look upon tn
parallel of 40 just and equitable line of partition
repeat find fault with this view of the matter
But this is not the view of the Senator from Missouri
He says the parallel Of 40 is the line of right, re
Sulting from The treaty Of Utrecht" "Thus," say
the Senator, the line of right is the best for bot
parties" &c. FOrty-nine is The line Of right 'cit
me- dc.
And why is this the line of right Because it wa
: established by the treaty of Utrecht If not thu
established, it is no line Of right. And he who seek
so to establish it must prove it. Let the honorabl
Senator prove it. submit to him, if the loose AM
contradictory notices he has brought forward SUI
fcient proofs of the existence of great line @
e national demarcation. under any circumstances an
J. still less under existing circumstances, contradice
they by the highest considerations and by tn
most respectable authorities. l submit to him. whc
is Their 1t is wise to stop his counrys pretension:
it without the most irrefragable evidence that his cour
IS try is wrong.
d Is there such evidence! The Senator refers agai
to the progress of this negotiation and invokes III
acts of Mr.. Jefferson and of Mr.. Madison as indca
e tive of their opinion. shall not go over this groun
only recalling, that all this before the Florid
treaty, and before the discovery of the respec
l. ing the line of Utrecht. Our rights have since the
been extended by purchase and made known by CO
1t rect historical Investigations.
Of The Senator says:
It 1t is the line of right resulting from the treaty Of
echt, and such, always looked in the early stages
this controversy both by American aud British statesme
> the ultimate basis of settlement and boundary bewes
the countries" is the line of all American state
men, without exception, twenty and forty years ago.
Now, sir, here is a great error, and am going
III prove it. l going to prove that this parallel
40 was not the line of all the American statesme
ie twenty and forty years ago. Nay more, sir. a
ie going to prove it not the line of the Senate
Is himself And he has given proof by long years
services, of his right to the title Of an emine
~ statesman The task Is an easy one To the lac an
l. 10 The testimony
u In the very first negotiation, in 191S upon. tn
subject, after the war, and before the acquisition
' Florida, III the statement of the claims of the Unite
States, Messrs. Rush and Gallatin did not asse
III that the United States had perfect right to Il
e. country but insisted that their claim was at least got
~ against Great Britain"
In 1923, MIR. Monroe proposed to England al
n Russia, as have already shown, that the parallel
X oil deg. should be our northern boundary
10 MIR. Rush, In a communication to Mr.. Adams, da
ed August 18th, 1924, informed him. that in h