Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1846-02-14

| r +
note into consideration, 'swith view to such an
arrangement on the principle Of arbitration as may
Z seem TO the Government of the United Mates
TO be most just, icise, and expedienf."
Here is, then, a reference proposed in the very
terms suggested by the United States--a reference
of the question OF tihe-with further suggestion
that the form Of reference may be such as Is most
agreeable to this Government.
20 this inquiry, and proposition, Mr.. BUCHANAN
replies, ON the 4th February, that the condition an
nexed to the proposal Of reference (Which, by the
by, would be inevitably Incident to any reference
Of the question Of title, unless excluded by express
|stipulaion) 'nght and probably would be, CON,
strled into intimafion, if not direct inuifa-
fion to the arbitrator 10 diUidc the territory be-
| tween the parties. -
But, noe sstis,isd with ths answer, the Secretary
lof State proceeds now for the first time to state an
objection which, if ithad not been withheld, would
at once have disposed of the question of arbitra-
ton, and rendered the further correspondence UNI
necessary. This objection is, that the President
does not believe the territorial claims of this Ma
ton to be proper subject Of arbitraton;" that is
to say that in all questions Of this sort, we will be
our somm erclusive Judge, and what we cannot OBJ
tain by negotiation, viii enforce at the lannon's
mouth. la..5 h ..,s II.
On the face of these papers, knowing, as we have
said, of nothing withheld from the public which
change their aspect we must say that this absolute
and unceremonious refusal of arbitration, when even
the choice Of manner aud form of arbitration is placed
as it were, at the absolute disposal of the United
Iafo d<>f,
expediency and not at all defensble on the ground
of public law.
The duty of nations to submit all matters in con-
roversy between them to such friendly arbitrament
rather than to disturb the peace of the world by re-
sorting war, Tor, by what is equivalent, making it
unavoidable, is enforced byeyery accredited writer
on international law; nor is there any portion of
that law more rational or more imperative upon CT
vlized nations. We shall quote only one writer on
elusive
" Who will dare says Vattel] TO insist that an
I other Esovereign1 shall Immediately, aud without
examination, relinquish TO him dispiddbIe right
|. This would be means of rendering wars perpe-
/. tual and inevitable Both the contending parties
may be equally convinced of the justice of their
claims why, therefore, should either yield TO the
|. other! In such q case, they can only demand an
examination of the question, propose cryereaee,
or An ARHffRATioN. or offer to settie the point BY
articles Of agreement
That the respective rights of the United States
and Great Britain to Oregon are disputable, and
have been considered doubtful by-every Admins
Iration of this Government preceding the present,
the whole world knows, and solemn conventions
between the two countries bear witness.
| Looking 10 the duty Of nations, as prescribed by
public law in precisely such cases as that Of the
Oregon controversy, the-question now submitted by
the President and his advisers to the American Peo
pie is, Whether they will adopt the novel principle
Of peremptorily rejecting all arbitration, and, virtual
y Withdrawing themselves from the social circle OF
nations become disurbers Of the peace of the world