The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-16

though hey might be willing to compromise, t
yield up some part Of our claim for an equivalent
and To settle the dispute on the line Of 49o.
| Mr.. BURT interpreted, and (Mr. c. yielding th'
hOOsl desired 10 ask the gentleman from Georgia
WHISTLER he meant 20 express the opinion that thos
who believe that Great Britain has title TO the coun
ny drained by Fruzers river, ought not TO vote fol
tbs blp
Mr.. CoAs replied, that his position was this; HI
would repeat IL; He said, II there was any territory
covered by the bill to which he believed this gov
eminent had no claim whatsoever, he would no
vote for extending the jurisdiction Of the United
States over that territory at period subsequent "a
the abrogation Of the convention Of 1877.
Mr.. BuRr (Mr G. again yelding) desired to
know-because he would like To be enlightened by
his honorable friend from Georgia-whether, in
his opinion, this bill was now 10 be regarded an
assertion Of the title Of the United States TO SO iO
II So awaiting himself Of high privilege, when one
discovered he had taken wrong posltion-the right
to ehange-he should certainly take back his position
IN favor Of this bill.
Mr., CosB resuming, said the whole object Of his
remarks had been 10 show that It was the duty OF
our government TO extend her jurisdiction over the
whole territory, II we believe we have a claim to
thai sitory which ought TO be asserted, but he did
not hold that those who might b In favor Of set
Element Of the question by compromise, were COM
mitied against such settlement Of boundary by
their vote for this bill. That was the position he
had taken, and endeayored 10 enforce, In the srgu-
ment which he had offered to the House.
For himself, he had no difficulty in regard to this
bill, under any construction that might be placed
upon II. Il suited him in every particular. His
object was 10 place such construction upon its
provisions that II would be acceptable 20 all the
friends Of the measure, and would unite them in lis
support, without drawing a distinction between
those who were IN favor OF a settlement Of the
boundary by compromise, the gentleman from
South Carolina, Mr. WooDwA ARD, ! yesterday, said
he was, and those who opposed 10 any such
settlement. His object had been 10 unite those who
held these different opinions in favor Of such a
measure as that now pTeCcnted to the consideration
Of the committee.
The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. VISros, and
other ganuemen, said they were willing 10 support
this bill provided the operation Of II was limited 10
the period that the convention Of 1927 In force;
but subsequent to that period they desire that other
and different legislation should be had. But Il we
were determined hereafter in any subsequent legis-
aton we might make, to FIX the boundary as
proposed by thus bill, there was no more difficulty
in settling II now than there would be at future
period. We could act we'll now in reference to
the time when the convention Of 1927 shall have
expired, as we could within month previous to
that time II the view presented by the honorable
gentleman from Ohio, was carried out would 1t not,
might il not be an act OF gross injustice to our citi-
zenH who are in Oregon You pass this bill for their
protection; your laws are extended them; your
courts are organized; they once more live under
the protection OF the laws Of the United States
but at the same time you inform them that this
is only a temporary arrangement you abol-
ish the temporary government which they have
reared UP there to protect themselves; while
the United States have withheld that protection
to which all our citizens thought themselves en-
titled; they abandon their present form Of govern
ment with all its provisions and safeguards in order
that they may be sheltered by the provisions OF your
law; and al the same time, you say TO them, this rs
mere temporary arrangement, and when the tune
comes upon the expiration Of the notice, to assert
our jurisdiction that country II will be Deepen
dent upos the will and caprice of the Congress OF
the United States whether we extend to you any
protection or not
There could be no ground Of difhculty-no valid
objection to making our laws permanent now. II
would not interfere with the convention Of 1877
the learned gentleman from Ohio could see no chance
Of its interference with the treaty. and certainly nc
one was more capable Of detecting such an inter
s-rcnce If il would arise 10 any point II, then
rsere would be interference with the treaty, u
vas understandable during the existence OF the
treaty; and, after the treaty shall have expired
there is nothing more necessary than the natural
courtesy which existed between all governments.
Mr.. VMIos interposcd, (and Mr.. c.. yielding,
said, if the amendment which he had proposed
were adopted, he should vote for the bill, because he
did not think the bill would work violation of the
rights of Great Britain, during the existence Of the
convention; but if the amendment were not adopted
from the termination of the convention, he thought
this bill would inevitably involve US in conflict
with Great Britain.
Mr. CoBB resuming, said that was a different con.
sideration what would be the result after the con
vention has expired. He was nquiring whether
the bill nterfered with the rights Of the British gov
eminent under the convention, and whether there
could be any cause of complaint on the part of the
British government from its passage. His idea was
that it did not interfere with, violate any prov
sion of the convention of 1927, and he referring
to the authority of the honorable gentleman to sus
tain him in that position, he clearly understood
him to do so.
There was one part of the amendment Of the gen.
,leman from Ohio which he thought ought to be put
into the BILL 1t was where he proposed to provide
that the provisions of this bill shall not interfere
with the rights of the government of Great Britain
or her citizens, during the existence of this conven
ton. He had no objection to that part of the gen.
| tleman's amendment.
But the gentleman says this bill will involve us in
conflict with Great Britain after the abrogaton o.
the treaty. That was portion Of the investigation
to which he desired to call the attention Of the COM
mittee for very few moments. Would it involve
us in conflict Unless there be a settlement of this
difficulty by negotiation previous to the expiration
Of the twelve months notice. would this government
be deferred from passing laws giving protection tc
its citizens in the Oregon territory by any apprehen
sion that such protection would involve us in con-
fict with Great Britain If 30, the step which thi,
House has already taken in giving the notice is ru
nous in the extreme, not only to our government
but to the people Of the United States who have emf
grated to Oregon. Better by far that we recall tina
act of legslation better that reconsider before
is too late if indeed the United States to be de
TERED hereafter from extending ample protection t.
our citizens in Oregon by the apprehension that j
will lead to conflict with Great Britain. This bill
if carried out after the expiration of the twev,
months, might lead to conflict. If there were nj
negotiation, no settlement Of the controversy, per
haps it would That conflict was inevitable if they
adhered to the passage Of the notice, and were un
willing to abandon the interests of your peop'
in that territory, and no previous settlement o
| the question was effected II he could for momen
entertain the idea that, after the expiration of Thu
convention, no protection was to be given to ou
citizens in that territory for fear of involving us II
the conflict, seemed to be feared by the gentleman
from Ohio, he would with the utmost speed retract
his steps, and acknowledge before the country tina
he had committed legislative blunder in voting TO
the notice. from the evil effects Of which he wouIt
90 TO relieve our citizens there and the whole