The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-02-26


train; and three years after, peace was agreed
upon, totally ignoring the causes which led to
hostilitiea We backed ont, and never, official
y, till 1912, was the chief ground OF complaint,
that Of inpressment, alluded to, and then Lord
Ashburten informed Mr.. Webster that he had
no powers under which he could negotiate on
the subject.
Thus, the fishery article in the treaty Of
peace has been made source of almost end
less international wrangling. In vain did we
point to the terms Of the treaty we were not
then strong Power-we had waged war with
our adversary and withdrew from it without
redreseing the grievances we complained of.
1t was, therefore, impossible to secure justice,
and absurd to hope for an enforcement of the
compact. In 1918 Mr.. Gsllatin and Mr.. Rush
negotiated another treaty, embracing the
fishery dispute. 1t is manifest, from the terms
of this latter convention, that our public men
bad come to the conclusion that we had better
take half loaf; so the general rights con-
veyed by the convention at Paris were vastly
reduced and confined to specific districts, and
these were subsequently diluted by the British
government, by insisting that we should be
confined to certain lines to be drawn from
"hesdlaDd to headland." The language of
this construction contrasts strangely with the
| 'coasts, bays and creeks" of the first treaty,
which smack stropg ly of near shore description.
But we yielded--precisely because we could do
NO better. 1t was all we could get, and all
we have ever succeeded in getting, excepting
| a treaty now and then which has invariably
cut down our rights.
We have been equally and even more unfor-
tunate in our intercourse with England touch
ing the bour daries of the Union. The original
convention on this subject was again all we'll
enough. 1t was not exactly definite, but I'M
dertook evidently to be fair. In process .of
time, however, under the rapid progress of this
country, and the Development of valuable
points here and there, it became manifest that
something could be gained by crowding US off
from this and that degree of latitude or longi-
tude; hence our boundary disputes were pro-
longed from 1888 TO 1916, a period of more
than sixty years, and ended at last by the loss
Of about three hundred miles of territory on
| the Pacific ocean, and extending in something
of wedge like form into the interior; and we
were equally unfortunate, though on a smaller
scale, in the settlement of the Northeastern
limits of the Union. A candid and fair con.
structon of the treaty of 1888, and that of
lsl4-the latter explanatory, giving "metes
and bounds touching the question of boundary
was all that we required to entitle US to all
we claimed in the Northeast and the North.
west; and that was precisely what was denied
u.s. The ink was hardly dry that legalized the
last named convention before the London Cabi-
net set up construction, touching the Oregon
boundary, wholly incompatible with its cove
nants.
Four years afterward that construction be-
came the basis of another negotiation, and the
United States SO far yielded as to agree to
joint occupation of the disputed territory for
ten years, and in 1923 extended this agree
ment for ten years more, and until certain no
tice should be given. When this notice was
finally served, and the joint occupation termi-
mated, we had the satisfaction of having these
two treaties quoted by the British government
as one of the grounds upon which it claimed
title. 1. is needless TO say, when the question
came up for final adjustment we backed down
from 54 degrees 40 minutes to the 49th paral-
lei of latitude, and put our antagonist into
possession of territory we had clearly acquired
by treaty with Spain and by discovery. The
Oregon treaty Of 1916 contains the terms of
this capitulation. We not only surrendered
our territorial rights ia that treaty, but con-
ceded to the Hudson's Bay Company what we
are now talking Of buying for over million
Of dollars.
Thus our boundary differences, extending
through sixty-three years of negotiation, gave
birth to Fix distinct treaties on the subject,
neither Of which was ever honestly executed,
possibly excepting the last and of that we
ought not to feel over confident. 1t is certain.
ly worthy Of note that England is the only
Power with which we have had these endless
boundary and intercourse disputes Our rela-
tions with all other States have been cordial
friendly, and easily managed
The very covenant of the first treaty of
peace, to withdraw the British armies from our
territory, and to surrender up places aud
things, and not to "carry away any negroes or
other property belonging to the Inhabitants Of
America" was not noticed at all till the con-
clusion of the convention of 1894, and then
shameiully violated in both provisions, the
subject matter of the latter of which was re-
ferred to the Emperor of Russia, and finally dis
posed Of in 1922. 1t is worthy Of remark that
even after the award of the umpire had been
given, the British Cabinet true to its instincts,
quibbled about the construction of that award,
and compelled the referee, out Of regard to his
own position, to re-affrm his decision.
The treaty of 1894, negotiated by Mr.. Jay,
was an unmixed blunder. So far as questions
previous dispute were involved, they were ac-
tually made worse; while its article in refer
encn to the trada Of tho Rritiah Wast Ird;as