The New York Herald Newspaper, April 28, 1846, Page 5

THE HERALD SUPP LEMENT. - JAMES GORDON Office N. W. Cerner .SPEECH MR. BREESE, OF ILLINOIS, THE OREGON QUESTION. DELIVERED 1N THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1846. THE OREGON | QUESTION. ‘The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the Special Order, being the eit resolution of the Committee on Foreign Relations, PDE to give notice to Great Britain of the dcaire the Governgent of the United States to annul and abrogat#the treaty for the joint Remeron the Oregon territory, and the reaolutions of Messr: Hannegan, Calhoun, and Crittenden, relating the same eubject. Mr. Bressg, of Illinois, addressed the Senate as | those lands, follows fAMr Paxsipent:—It 1s not to be expected that any Senator rising in the present stage of this de- bate, can throw much additional light on the tant question before us. It has been 80 elaborately discuseed, not only in these Halls, but by the public ress throughout the country, that it is now scarce- ¥ possible to invest it with a new interest, or urge topics with which the Senate and the country are not already fami! It had excited, and justly too, throughout every part of our widely-extended Union, the most earnest attention of the whol American people. Probably, no question since we had become a nation, had aroused so strong an in- terest as this has, and none, probably, has been more ably debated. The nation awaits with intense anxiety the decision of Congress, and the eyes of all are now turned to the action of the Senate. The Executive has done what belonged to him in the matter; and the House of Representatives has per- formed its@uty. It now only remains for the Senate bs pena its duty, by consummating the action of oth. It is, Mr. President, in view of the great interest the State from which | come has in this question, and in obedience to an overruling sense of duty to it, that 1 am now prompted to address the Senate. I did not know, eir, until this morning, that the General Assembly of my State had, at its last ses- sion, adopted the resolutionejust presented by my colleague, [Mr. Semple,] anu gead by the Secretary. I was aware, sir, that two years since, similar reso- lutions had been adopted and presented here; and two years since, it was my duty and my pleasure, here in my place, to tespond to them, and toexpress bs the views I then entertained of the subject, and of the obligations resting upon Congress to cai out the wishes of that State, and those of other States who had conveyed here, similar expressions of the public will. ese resolutions, sir, read here at this moment, but strengthen me in the determina- tion I had formed to vote for some resolution to an- nul and abrogate the conventions of 1818 and 1827, and to follow it up, by pressing such other measures as should place our citizens beyond the Rocky mountains under the protection of our laws; incor- porate the country into our Union ; protect the emi- grant on his way to its fertile plains, and pledge to all who seek them, the honor and faith of the Gov- ernment that they shall be made secure in their pos- sessions by perfect grants of land, at the earliest pe- riod within the competency of the Government to act, consistent with tteaty stipulations. And I can- not but hope that my conduct in these regards will be approved by the State of Illinois, whose will and feelings and opinions! take re in reflecting. In that State, sir, there 18 but one opinion; nay, sir, in the entire Northwest, so tar as 1 am inform- ed, (and Ihave much attention to the manites- tations of the public mind,) there is no difference of opinion upon it. Ido not think, sir, that any party, or any respectable portion of any party, is op- posed to prompt and immediate action by Congress, to terminate, what all feel and believe to be an in- convenient and injudicious relation between this and a foreiga country, affecting, as it does, so disas- trously, many important national interests. The’ dre not, sir, for “wise and masterly inactivity ;” whatever might have been its virtue in times past, think the tme has arrived tor action, prompt and decided ; and in this, sir, I concur {with them most heartily ; and with the favor of the Senate, | will give some reasons, briefly as I may, for their and my opinions. : Ey Ido not intend, Mr. President, to enter upon a discuasion of the relative taerits of the various pro- positions now on your table, by which the first ob- ject is sought to be attained. I will not contrast or compare them, or attempt to point out the difference between them ; suffice it to say, that my preterence 18 for that form which shall in the most direct mah- ner effect the object desired. Nor will I discuss the important propositions contained [in the resolu- tions ot the Senator of Indiana, (Mr. Hannegan,) or the substitute for them iets by the Senator of South Carolina, [Mr. Cathoun,] believing, as 1 do, that it is unnecessary, at this time, to express an opinion upon them. At present, we have only todo with the naked Fst of the propriety of giving notice to Great Britain of our desire to annul an abrogate a convention, the benefits of which are wholly upon the side of Great Britain, and which stands in the way of the free and untrammelied ac- tion of this Goverament upon an integral part of our national domain, to which many thousands of our citizens have pushed their enterprise, but who are without the efficient protection of this Government and its laws. Nor do | intend, sir. in the view I shall take of this subject, to go into an extended and labored dis- cussion of the title of the United States to the coun- try west of the Rocky mountains, nor dilate upon its beauties and advantages, though I by no means believe such a discussion is inappropriate; nor would I desire to restrain Senators, on either side, from a full and free expression of their opinions upon the question of title. It is true, sir, the propri- ety of the notice at this time is the only question be- fore the Senate ; yet the title 1s necessarily misgled with it, and forms an Hy element in the de- bate; for if the United States have no valid title to the country covered by the convention, it may well -be contended, a notice to terminate it would be im- politic and unwise. Two years ago, sir, when this subject was before the Senate, the title was discuss- ed more or less, I think, by ore speaker; and what is worthy of note, not a Senator was then found expressing a doubt of the validity of the Ame- rican title. Now, alter two years of investigation and reflection, I do hear, sir, occasionally, some doubts expressed of its validity. I entertain none myself; and ifIdid, I should solve them for my country. Then, sir, objections were urged against ving the notice at that time, for the reason that we invited a renewal of negotiations, with a view to a final adjustment of the controversy, and that a special Envoy, at our instance, had been sent here by Great Britain to conduct them on her part ; and that it would be discourteous at such a moment, and under such circumstances, to give the notice; and it was further said, that, at that time and in the then aspect of affairs, war might be the consequence of ouraction. At the present session, we have heard, sir, from the only Senator who has spoken to the question on the other side ot the Chamber, [Mr. J. M. Clayton,] thatthe notice would not lead to war; but, om the contrary, that it would be a preservative of peace; that it isa measure eri | to peace, and important to be given as a means that relation between two great and rvin shane ing it aa hie powerful nations; at the same time opinion that the question of title should be discussed with closed doors—thereby implying, there might be some obscurity ae it, which it would be prudent not to ——_ fore the world. As I have stated, Mr. President, Ido not to go at lei into the discussion of our title. the ve: je arguments of the Senators of New York tt . Dix and Mr. Dickineon) upon this branch of the supject, by which the Senate and the coun- try were so much edified a tew days since, for me to attempt to add to their force and point would be “wastetul and ridiculous excess.” 1 shall not at- tempt it, eir; and I throw myself upon the indul- gence of the Senate merely tor the purpose of pre- senting some principles ot public law to which have not adverted, which Great Britain herself has established on this continent, having, as | conceive, a direct ew upon her ed claims to the country west of the Rocky mountains, and decisive, in my Judgment, of the case against her. 1 wish to show, sir, that she 19 eat by herown voluntary act, on her own principles, trom setting up gi yever to any patt of the territory of on. jot an estoppel in law, sir, but an estoppel in pat: an act done by her, which debars her, for all ume to come, from any territorial right there, unless she can extort one from our G by a cession of some part of the ter to her, with or withovt an equivalent; that wi such cession, she can have no claim whatever. I did not say, sit, a8 1 am reported in the journale here to have said, in the few hasty remarks I made tothe Senate the other day, that T could pirate “that we had s ttle qo the whole ai fe i a iv of Pelton and Nemeu sts.) NEW YORK, TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1846. HERALD CIRCULATION—FORTY ‘THOUSAND, Daily, ‘Two Cents Per Copy; Weekly, $3,12; a Year, rey ’ JT would by no means make such a vledge for, however strong my own convictions y be, I might be unable so to present them as to convinee others ; hence, 1 would not incur the re- epenaibtliey which attaches to such a declaration. hat I intended to say, sir, was, that 1 would en- deavor to show, on the principles established by Great Sime yt prec that < _ was clear as against he! that could not dispute it—prin- ciples which she had put forth and maintained at the cannon’s mouth, before the war ot independence —priaciples which, if correct then. are i now to this territorial dispute, which, with such remarkable fatuity, we have so long entertained, but which, I ti 18 Row soon to be terminated. It is a matter of well-known history, Mr. Presi- dent, that the ron of Great Britain granted colo- nial charters to Virginia,: and to other British- American colonies, long prior to the conquest of Canada, which extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, and covered by their broad and com- prehensive description the whole of the territory weat of the Rocky mountains, from 34 to 62 degrees north latitude. That to Virginia, by James the First, bears date May 23, 1609; it erects the colony into a body corporate and politic, and the grant 18 thus expressed :— . ! ‘©We do give, grant and confirm, unto the said treasurer and company and their successors, all countries, and territories, situate, lying and being in that port ot America called Virginia, from the point of land called Cape or Point Comtort all along the seacoast to the northward two hun- dred slo and from the said point of Cape Comfort all along the seacoast to the southward two hundred miles, and all that space and circuit of land lying from the seacoast ot the precinct aforesaid up into the land, throughout from sea to sea, west and north- pe and also all the islands lying within one hun- dred yniles along the coast of both seas of the precinct atoresaid: to have and to hold, enjoy, le | all and singular the said lands, countries and territo- ries, with all and singular the premises by these presents granted or mentioned to be granted to them, their successors and assigns, forever.” ‘The first charter of 1606 extended along the sea- coast from the 34th to the 41st degree of north lati- tude, but only fitty miles inland. The third, dated in 1612, annexed to Virginia all the islands within three hundred leagues of the coast; and although this charter ot 1609, with the other two, were va- cated by quo warranto fin 1624, yet a commission ssued tor the Government of the Colony of Vir- ginia under the royal seal, without making any alte- rations in the boundaries as established by the char- ter of 1609. ts vid Grants to Lord Baltimore and to William Penn curtailed this colony on the north, but the western limit was not restricted. By running line from a point “two hundred miies from Cape Comfort” on the Atlantic coast, in a northwest direction, it will be found to pass to the east of the Lake of the Woods, and to strike the Pacific coast near or at the @21 degree of north lati- tude,and that this northwest line should run from that point, and not from thie point on the coast two hun- dred miles south of Cape Comfort; but that the west line should start from this southern point, is of manifest propriety. for in no other way could the limits of the colony extend ‘‘from sea to sea,” and by so marking it, no violence is done to the language used, and the object of the grant carried out, and the cardinal rule observed, “ so to construe instru- ments, if possible, thatevery part may stand ” This it was made, sir, hy the British King as an act of sovereignty and in virtue alone of the dis- covery, under his arugees of the American Atlan- tic coast one hundre: fourteen years before. This charter is evidence, sir, that he claimed not only the right of pre-emption of the native occupants of the soil, but absolute jurisdiction and sovereigaty over all the territory covered by it from sea to sea, by an antiquated discovery le by his subjects, not followed up for more than a century by any effort at settlement whatever, and by continuity of territory, there being nothing to break that chain. History intorms us, sir, that Pope Alexander VI. had, the year atter the discovery of America, grant- ed the same country to Ferdinand and Isabella by his memorable bull issued from St. Peters, at Rome, tn 1493, as God’s vicegerent on earth, to whom all kings were subject, rather, perhaps, as within the boundaries prescribed by him between Spain and Portugal than as grant. ‘The right of these two po: tentates to make the grants, sir, will not be inquire: into, as it is @nnecessary to a true understanding of the point I wish to make. The fact of making the grant is alone important in this discussion. [t Great Britain did make them, I maintain she parted with all right to every part of the domain included with- in the-charter, and the act is an estoppel in pais, as to any right on her part to any portion of this conti nent between the lines of her grants. Great Britain, then, assumed to own, by virtue of her prior discovery, not oar the British settlements on the coast and rivers, and the land immediately conti or drained by the waters of the rivers which flowed through her inhabited places, but she ineisted, sir, upon excluding France, and all other nations trom colonizing any part of the country west of the Alieghany range to the Pacific, on the ground alone that prior discovery and settlement, cher the lapse of more than a century, of a of the Atlantic coast, gaveto Great Britain a Tight of sove- reigaty and soil, by continuity and contiguity, from ocean to ocean. France, we know, sir, made an unsuccessful ef- fort to resist, by war, this British principle of inter aational law. The parent country called upon her American colonies, now the United States of Ame- rica, to join the British forces and sustain this great principle of her national policy; and after a long and desolating war,in which British and American blood and treasure were treely expended, victory crowned the arms of the confederates. The treaty of peace ot the 10th of February, 1763, made between Great Briain, Spain, and France; ratified this British prin- ciple of international law, by implication at least. By the 4th article of that treaty, sir, the King of France, as the aggressor, and as unfortunate in the tieid, “* renounces all pretensions which he has here- tofore formed, or might form, to Nova Scotia or Aca- dia, in all parts, and guaranties the whole of it, and with its dependencies, to the King of Great Britain: moreover, his most Christian Mejesty cedes and gua- rantees to his said Britannic Majesty, wm full right, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the Island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the gulf of the river St. Lawrence, and in general everything that depends on the said coun- tries, is, islands, and coasts, with the sovereignty, Property, possession, and all rights acquired by trea- ty or otherwise.” France, it 1s well known, sir, had commenced set tlements at Acadia, and in a dependency of Canada northwest ot the Ohio, being now the State from which 1 come, and onthe Ohio river; and be beaten in the field, renounced her right and yielded all her pretensions to them. She was forced, sir, to acknowledge this British doctrine tor the American continent, that prior remote discovery and subse- quent partial settlement on the Atlantic and a few of its rivers, afforded a just and sufficient for extension by contiguity and continuity from that Coast to the Pacific. The same rule of public law she had applied, sir, long previously, to the Dutch in their colony of New Netherlands, atterwards colony, now Stete ot New York. Great Britain claimed to have first discover- ed the Hudson river in 1608 bya Dutch navigator in their service, who sold it to the Dutch; and although they first settled at its mouth prior to the settlement of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, and occupied it for halt a century, they fell under the operatioa of this British American principle of international law, and Conguest, justified by Britain on prior discovery and 1y, a8 intervening her colonies both north- ward and southward, finally added New York to the Briush colonies in North America, extending trom the sea to the great lakes. Great Britain, sir, maintained this doctrine, of right to territory being conferred by discovery, by her sword, and compelled all other Powers teebler than he: to it to its ion. Certainly, then, sir, we had a clear right, when contending with ag res Feating upon similar yet: stronger grounds, to apply t own principles, whic! we, as colonies, aided her i ishing. And it neither comports with justice nor propriety, should be permitted to change her grou ment those principles become nd the seat incon' - self, and obstruct her path to territorval caurendice. ment. he must now stand \p to the prinerple— “the chalice must be returned to her own lips.” She applied this same principle, sir, to the Falk- pas on the Atlantic coast of South rica, which were firat seen in 1502 by one of her naviga- tors; and afterwards, in 1764 possession was taken of all of them in the name of rge the Third, then King, by landing on one of them, th no settlement whatever was made or attempted. in, two years after, seat troops from her province of Buenos Ayres to one of these islaads, took possession of it, settled it, and gave it anmame. In 1769, a dispute Grose between these two crowns as to thesovereign- ty of these islands, when this British principle of public law was again invoked, and Spain, weak and timid Spain, had to submit. Indeed, sir, her whole lastory shows that prior discovery, even unaccompanied by setilement, was for her, a sufficient ground of tule. "- It may be said, sir, that a true exposition of the law of nations does not sanction this principle. But Great Britain has established it, aud the controver- sy ue with ber) and to her 44 90g be applied with ~~ gem culiar and powerful force. She was enabled to write this wd — > point - her sword ; sg to interpolate the code of public law in a manner to sui herself. In this matter of international law, sir, the great moral law which should govern nations as garded. “With nations; might a too commonly Te- . With nations, might is too commonly re- one as right, and poser compels obedience to the most odious » principles which, from the forced ac- quiescence ot the weak, become in time to be re- garded as fundamental principles of international law. No nation, sir, oe been more uniformly successful than Great Britain in establishing those principles of international law which best comport- ed with her own views of policy; and she has defi- ed all nations, not excepting “our own, sir, in their assertion and nent mngy resident, this conjoint British and Apply, Mr. Pre B American expositon of public law, which I have stated, to the Spanish discovery, in a national ship, fitted out for the purpose, by Perez in 1774, of the acifie coast of Cregon as far north as the northwest point of Washington Islands, as claimed by the Uni- ted States, including also Nootka and Vancouver’s Island ; of Heceta and Quadra in 1775, of the mouth of the Columbia river, and of varioue other parts of the coast, as related by Humboldt in his “New Spain,” (vol. 2, pp. 252, 258;) to the fact of an ac- tual Spanish occupation ot Nootka from 1789 to 1795, when the Spaniards voluntarily abandoned it ; and that no British settlement has since been made there. Apply it to the American discovery of and ing up the principal river by Captain Gray in his good ship the Columbia, whose name the river bears. Apply it to the prior settlement by Spain of Calitor- ma and gther points of the coast of the Pacitic, un- der the orders of the Viceroys of New Spain, with a steady aud unyielding claim of title from 1774, to the whole coast from California to a latitude north of 54d es 40 minutes. A ly itto the explora- tions of Oregon by Lewis and Clarke from the head waters of the Columbia to its mouth on the line of continuity, and to the American settlements made in 1809 and 1811—the latter being Astoria, at its mouth —and the post on the Okanagan, six hundred miles up the river, and one on the pokan, still farther ad- vanced, and on the Kooskooskee and the Willamette rivers, and to the surrender of Astoria to the United States by Great Britain in virtue of the first article of the treaty of Ghent, and without any qualification or reservation whatever; and consider that all these acts and foundations of title, Spanish and American, belong to the United States,—and we find our title pertect to the whole of Oregon upon those principles of public law established by Great Britain herself on the American continent prior to our Revolution in 1776, and which she has ulways urged in her own behalf. ‘ n a eer own doctrine, sir, have we not a perfect title to the whole of Oregon? Have we not a perfect right, sir, to apply to her pretensions there. the test of her own principles 1 It her discovery ot the Atlantic coast, and her partial settlements at Jamestown and Plymouth, entitled her to claim the whole coast and country, and to turn the French and the Dutch out of it—do not our discoveries, and those of Spain, which now belong to us, on the Northwest coast, and her and our establishments and possessionsthere ; (Spain being undeniably the first discoverer, and that not remote! % 5) give us ati- tle equally valid to the coast of the Pacific? If the British principle wassound in the one case, why was itnotin the other? Can this be answered? Or shall it be permitted her, at her own caprice, to change principles she has established, without resist- an.e, from a government and power equal, if not superior, to her own ? : i 3 _ The views here presented, sir, justify me, { think, in the assertion, that from the public law in regard to title arising upon discovery, as asserted by Eng- land, she is estopped by her own act from claiming any pare ot the Northwest coast between 34 deg. and 62 deg. north latitude. It will not do to say, sir, in oppomition to this conclusion, that the limite of the British possessions on this continent were confined by the treaty of 1763 to the country east of the Mississippi; nor that the treaty of peace of 1783, acknowledging the independence of American colonies, confined them to that river as their western limit. This is no answer to the argument, based as it is upon the previous act of Great Britain herself, and she now the opposing claimant; for by the terms of that acknowledgment, his Britannic Matesty ac- knowledges “the United States to be tree, sove- reign, and independent States ; that he treats with them as such; and for himselt, his heirs, and suc: cessors, relinquishes all claim to the government, property, and terrztorial ta of the same ano every part thereof.” Although boundaries were established by thistreaty for the States, yet there was no assumed resumption of territory theretofore ted py Great Britain to any of the colonies ; but all their “ territorial rights” are preserved to them as stated. By the colony charter of 1609, Virginia had “territorial rights,” as against Great Britain, on the Pacific coast, comprehending twenty-eight de- grees of latitude ; and though she did not claim, as against France and Spain, any farther west than the Mississippi, she could claim as against Great Bri- tain—no treaty or act of hers having restricted her western limits in favor of Great Britain. Apart, then, sir, from the claims of France and Spain, Vir- ginia claimed rightfully from sea to sea; ‘and this ttle, thus emanating from Great Britain hereelf, she granted to the United States by her deed of cession Of the 1st of March, 1784. Another view of the question, sir, and auxiliary to this already presented, makes the case more con- clusive ; and itis this: Great Britain, by virtue of prior discovery, and of small and detached settle- ments made after the lapse of more than a century, claimed a perfect ttle to, and jurisdiction over, the vast region stretching from the Atlantic to the Pa- cific, including Oregon, and covered it with her co- lontal charters, as we have seen. _ By the treaty of Paris of 1763, before adverted to, sir, and by the treaty of peace of 1783, Great Britain abandoned her right to all the land covered by these charters west of the Mississippi river, (which of ne- cessity accrued to Spain as the owner of Louisiana by the secret treaty of 1762) and of all the country weet to the Pacific, including the whole of Oregon ; because there was no other power then in existence asse! a claim to, or which had made a settle- ment at that time on, that coast; and the claim by continuity, extending eastward trom the Pacific, and westward from the Mississippi, would lawtully cover the whole space. This treaty of 1763 was to close a war waged for territorial nghts, and it was intended “to remove forever af subjects of dispute with regard to the imits of the British and French territories om the continent of America ;” the secret treaty of 1762 not then known, by which Spain had succeeded to the rights of France. It was agreed by it ‘‘ that, Sor the future, the confines between the dominions ot his Britannic Majesty and those of his most Chris- tian Le ag bop that part of the world, shall be fixed in bly by a line drawn along the middle of the river Missiesippi, from its source to the river Iber- ville, and from thence, by a line drawn along the middle of this river and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, to the sea.” Spain, at the same time, sir, ceded to Great Bri- tain Fiorida, and all Spanish possessions east of the Mississippi ; and these parties, by their respective gessions, left the inference, although not expressed in the treaty, that the territory west of that river re- mained in the i Tage neninal of either or both, France and Spain subsequent cession of Louisiana by Spain to France in enabled her to cede the | through same to the United States by the treaty of 1803. If not conveved by that treaty, sir, as not within the lumits of Louisiana, it was withia the dominions of Spain; and that power, by the Florida treaty of 19, ceded to us all her “rights, claims, and pre- tensions” to the territories on the Pacific north of the forty-second degree of north latitude. Mr. President, to say the least of this exhibition of title on our part, a strong prima facie case is made out, sufficient, in a court of justice, to put the opposing party on his defence ; and if he shows no title on his part, a recovery must be had for the pre- mises in question. It is a good title, and must pre- vail over a showing and claiming none, al- though in actual ion ; such possession being by the consent of the party bold the title, and which the tenaat is not at liberty to te. It is now for Great Britain to show her title. We have made out a prima facie case as against her, and can recover on its strength, unless some act has been done by us, or by one or all of the parties through whom we claim, to defeat a recovery. Since this charter of 1609, and the treaty of 1763, Great Britain could put forth no valid pretensi: , to any part of this continent west of the Mississippi, unless she can found it on some transaction or treaty subse- quent to those dates. The conclusion is irresistible —there is no escape {rom it: she has given up all the continent west of that river, and can claim nothing there, uniess on the ground of some subse quent arrangem nt, by which a valid claim has been acquired. And this, sir, it is pretended, she has ac- priced by the -onvention between Spain and Great ritain, signed at the Escurial on the 28:h of Oc- tober, 1790, called the “ Nootka Convention.” This Convention, allowing British cubjecta to make set- dements for trade with the indians, without any ote oie opin eg is alleged, changes arecovery. it remains to be pre m to i - waa if this is 80—af tha -~ td _ wen, Mr. President, Cognisn* ~ <vavention does secuce to or re- reat Britain sah « territorial claim ~~ will deleat our tile, convention would have been ipso facto coast The language ot the convention, sir, speaks f itself. There 18 not a syllable in it, nor @ sentence, which can be tortured to convey the idea of a ces- sion of soil and sovereignty, or of a recognition of territorial or national rights, as pre-existing in Great Britain. It secured simply, sir, to. the subjects of both Great Britain and Spain ceriain privileges on thatecoast. Look, sir, at the fourth article of the treaty of 1763 for the terms nations use in ceding soil and sovereignty. They are far different trom those used in the Nootka convention. There are words importing grants. No terms of grant or cession of any sort bei! found in the Nootka convention, it must be deemed, lke the conveation we are seeking to annul and ab- Togate, @ mere international arrangement for the purposes of trade, which can have no influence on the question of sovereignty and ttle. Great Britain was seeking no national sovereignty or jurisdiction on that coast, but to protect the individual property of her subjects there, and trading privileges, ‘‘ for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the natives of the ccuntry, or of making settlements there ;” and these subject to many restrictions, which Spain, as the rightful sovereign, could alone impose. 3 t 18 difficult, sir, to misunderstand the-relative position of the two parties to the convention—Spain claiming to be the sovereign of the country, and Great Britain simply stipulating for the protection of the private rights of her subjects within it, for the sole purpose of trading with the Indians on Spanish coast ; stipulations which would be inno- cent and admissible if applied this very day in favor of a foreign power to the Atlantic coast of the Uni- ted States. Such a grant would be perfectly harm- less, and would convey to such power no more, and as much, sovereignty as was conveyed by the Noot- ka convention. nate Indeed, sir, Great Britain, so late as the 16th De- cember, 1826, declared to our Mimieter that she “claims no exclusive sovereignty over any portion of that territory: her present claim, not in respect to any part, but the whole, 18 limited to a right of joint occupancy in common with other states, leaving the right ot exclusive dominion in abeyance.” This, it must be admutted, sir, 18 a very vague and unde- fined claim ; the convention recognising only the right of British subjects to trade with the natives only, and even that subject to restrictions. Yet Great Britain admits, that whatever the title may have been, ‘either on the part of Great Britain, or ration. And now, sir, what does this British histo- rian say of the whole proceeding? Hear him, sir: “ But though England, at the se of three millions extorted from the Spanii @ promise o! restoration and reparation, it is well ascertained Airst, thatthe settlement in question never was re- stored by Spain, nor the Spanish flag at Nootka ever struck ; ‘and, secondly, that no settlement has ever been subsequently attempted by England on the Calitornia coast. The claim of right set up by the Court ot London, it i, therefore, plain, has been virtually abandoned, notwithstanding the menacing tone in which the negotiation was conducted by the Britigh administration, who cannot escape some censure for encouraging these vexatiows encroach- mente hay ote jortal rights of Spain.” (Appen- ix. pp. 40, 41.) What, then, Mr. President, becomes of the terri- torial claims of Great Britain upon the northwest coast ; since, whatever they may have been “prior tothe convention of 1790, they were from thence- forward no longer tobe traced in vague narratives of discoveries, several of them admitted to be apoc- typhal, but inthe text and stipulations of that con- vention itself,” and they of the character I have shown them to be, on the authority of her own his- torians and her own published documents ? _And, sir, it may be observed here, that if these views of that cdhvention are erroneous, and that England did actually acquire, or procure the recog- nition of, territorial claims there by this convention, then, sir, it may well be insisted such claim, or title, or whatever it may be, enured, on principles of natural equity and anes: to us as her assignee, through Virginia, of the whole country. But, sir, this convention being of the character I have stated it to be, a mere international arrange- ment for trading purposes, on a remote coast, was abrogated, on principles of British law—and I pre- fer appealingto that in a controversy of this nature— as pronounced by one of her most distinguished ministers and statesmen, Lord Bathurst, 1m the ne- otiation of 1815, between England and the United fates, respecting the Newfoundland fisheries. He said ‘* Great Britain knows of no exception to the rule that all treaties are put an end to Ly a subse- quent war between the same parties.” The war of 1796, between Spain and Great Britain, abrogated this convention therefore, and it has never been re- newed. No subsequent treaty between those powers can be shown, which, in its terme, or by its spirit and intention, renews this convention. on the part ot Spain, prior to the convention of 1790, it was trom thencetorward no longer to be traces in vague narratives of discoveries, several of them admitted to be apocryphal, but in the text and stipu- lations of that convention itself.” Why, it asked, make such a convention with Spaia, if she had no right of soil or sovereignty there; if she was not entitled, on British principles of public law, to the full benefit of all her discoveries and settlements on that coast, which she was at so much pains and expense to make, eee an organized department of her government established for that express pur- pose ? Great Britain, up to that time, sir, never sent out a single ship for any such purpose. Drake was a pirate, and navigated the seas tor plunder, and, instead of a halter, received from his sovereign be | the treaty of Paris of 1763, so often reterred to, si The mode, as practised, sir, by those very powers, of renewing a treaty after a war, is by an express recital and renewal of it by date, or particular de- scription and confirmation. The second section of shows the mode in which Great Britain and Spa and France renew treaties. [t is in this form “ The treaties of Westphalia of 1648; those of M drid, between the crowns of Great Britain and Spain of 1667 and 1670; the treaties of peace of imeguen of 1678 and 1679; of Ryswick of 1697; those of peace and ef commerce of Utrecht ot 1713; thatot Baden of 1714; the treaty of the triple alliance of the Hague of 1717; that of the quadru- ple alliance of London ot 1718; the definitive trea- ty of Vienna of 1738; the definitive treaty of Aix- knighthood. Cook was sent to discover the much wriswed-tor western passage to China, and had strict orders not to take possession of any part of the coast already discovered, or visited by any European power. in uninhabited countries he was to erect the proper symbols of possession. He made no dis- coveries, sir, which had not been made years before by Spanish navigators, except, perhaps, the Icy pe. Perez was in Nootka Sound in 1774, and Bodega y Quadra in 1775 had named a mountain under the parallel of 57 deg. Mount Sun Jacinto, which Cook saw 1n 1778, and called Mount Edge- comb. And it may be asked, sir, whose right of “exclusive dominion” over this country was thus “to remain in abeyance ?” Did Spain, by that con- vention, agree to any thing more than this, that whilst the convention existed, her exclusive sove- reignty and jurisdiction over the country, up to the 61st degree ot north latitude, which she had repeat- edly asserted and insisted on before the powers of Europe, and not questioned by them, should not be exercised as to the subj { Great Britain? Thie, Mr. President, aj to me to be the true meaning and spirit convention of Nootka. Great Britain did not claim the sovereignty: the treaty was not made to convey the sovereignty: 1 was to re-establish British subjects in the possession of such “lands, buildings, vessels, and merchan- dise, and other property,” of which, it was alleged, they had been foreibly dispossessed ; ‘‘ or,” in de- fault thereof, “a just compensation” to be made to them “for the losses which they had sustained.” Neither the message of the King, sir, nor the dis- cussions in Parliament, nor the | jage of the di- plomatic correspondence, nor the words of the treaty itself, make the least allusion to a claim of sove- reignty by Great Britain, nor to a direct denial of such sovereignty as existingin Spain. The deb: in Parliament, sir, which ensued this convention will be in vain appealed to, as furnishing any evi- dence that it was the understanding of any British statesman of that day, wholtook part in “the discus- sion, that any territorial rights, jurisdiction, or sove- reignty, were acquired by it. Besides, sir, what- ever it may be, it was extorted from Spain whilst under a moral duress. She was not in a condition to resist any demand Great Britain, in her arrogant spirit, might choose to make. It was an extortion which shocked the moral sense of nations. One of the most distinguished British historians, in com- menting upon this transaction, so derogatory to the fame of a great and proud nation, says: “By the treaty of 1763, the river Mississippi flowing from north to south, in a direct course ol fitteen hundred miles, was made the perpetual boundary of the two empires; and the whole coun- try to the west of that vast river belonged to his Catholic Majesty, by just as valid a tenure as the country eastward. of the river to the King of Eng. land. “Exclusive of the recent and decisive line oj demarcation, by which the relative and political rights ot both nations were clearly ascertained, the Spanish Court referred to ancient treaties, by which the rights of the Crown of Spain were acknowledged ia their full extent by Great Britain.” __ After commenting on the offer of Spain to refer the matter to any crowned head in Europe, which Great Britain refused, and the proceedings of the King and Parliament, he says: é “No assistance being had from France, Spain, yielding to necessity, complied with the harsh de- mands for restitution and indemnification ; and at length, on the 28th of October, 1796, a convention was at the Escurial, by which every point in dispute was conceded by Spain. The settlement of Nootka was restored, free navigation and right of fishing in the southern Pacific were confirmed to Britain ; a full liberty of trade, and even of settle- ment, was granted to ali the northwest coasts of America beyond the most northerly of the nish settlements, , however, by any formal renwnciation of their rights of sovereignty. w This, Mr. President, is the language of the im- rtial British historian, Belsham, (vol. 8, pp. "7,) and clearly shows that no htt nf was acquired by Great Britain over any part of the north- west coast; and such avila as were actually granted, it notexercised by the grantee during the continuance of ownership by Spain, (and they were not,) would not attach to the territory when out of the ion of Spain. The convention would not bind the nation to whom Spain ceded. Itis nota covenant running with the land, and to adhere to it all the mutations of ownership. If that country,sir, had become settled after this convention by our own citizens, or subjects of a foreign power, and they had established their independence, the and equally so by a cession to another powe! the cae of Texee, sir, for an example. Whilst an independent nation, she made treaties with several of the European Powers. She is now no longer such a nation—she is incorporated into our Union. What becomes ot these treaties? Are they binding upon us? Can those foreign powers demand of us the fulfilment of the engagements of Texas? Ido not so understand it, sir. No morecan Great Bri- tain claim, that the country upon the northwest to us by Spain, 18 encumbered in our hands by stipulations which Spain entered into whilst she posseesse: id it. But look, sir, to a part of the letter of Alleyne Fitzherbert, the British Minister at Madrid, to the Count Florida Blanca, the Spanish Minister, for the true undi and real view wich Great Bri- tain then entertained of this question. He says, in his reply to the count’s memorial, after ing of the reparation to which England was entitled for the violence at Nootka: — “ Finally, as to the nature of the satisfaction which the Court ot London exacts on this occasion, and on which your excellency appears to desire some ex- planation, Iam ized, wir, to assure you, tha: if hus Catholic Majesty consents te make a deciara tion in his name, in substance that he had determined to offer to his Britannic ewe, te just and equitable satistaction tor the insuit offered to hie flag, such offer, joined to a promise of makiog restituion of the veseels captured, and "9 inaemnify pe ade gece the ron ions specified in the will ii a Py 6 on om Jee May: «ue regarde his Britannic Majesty as consti- tau ” inntealt he satistaction demanded ; and hit paid Majesty will accept of it as such, by a counte: declaration on his part.”-( , vol. 8, page 33.) Fiorida Blanca made the required declaration, Fitzherbert accepted by hs promised counter decla- la-Chapelie of 1748; and that of Madrid between the crowns of Great Britain and Spain of 1750 ; as well as the treaties between the crowns of Spain and Por- tugal of the 13th of February, 1668, of the 6th of February, 1715, and of the 12th of February, 1761, and that of the llth of April, 1718, between France and Portugal, with the guaranties of Great Britain, serve as a basis and foundation to the peace and to the present treaty ; and for this purpose they are all renewed and confirmed in the best torm, as well as the treaties in general which subsisted between the high contracting parties before the war, as if they were inserted here, word for word, so that they are to be exactly observed for the futwre in their whole tenor,” §c. 2” §C. This, sir, is the regular mode of reviving treaties which have been abrogated by a war—not by silent inference, but by express recognition and enumera- tion ; for in this mode all doubt and uncertainty as to the intention of the parties is removed. .. The treaty of Madrid, ot 1814, did not, nor was itintended to, revive the Nootka convention, or any commercial treaty or international arrangement which war had terminated, except those relating to commerce between Great Britain, and Old Spain, not including her American colonies or distant pos- sessions; for one clause of that treaty stipulates, if the trade is opened to her colonies, England shali be placed on the footing of the most tavored nation in Tegpect to it. How, then, it may well be in- qaired, can “ the text and stipulations of the Nootka ”’ which did not, virtually, grant any- thing to Great Britain, but merely permitted British subjects to settle for trading purposes upon the north- west coast, and did not even grant to them the fee simple of their settlements, be now regarded as such a foundation of title in Great Britain as to jus- tify her in demanding of us, who have succeeded, by fair purchase, to all the rights of Spain, a divi- sion of the oma % With equal propriety, sir, might a tenant at will, or at sufferance, who has oc- cupied the premises of another under a license un- molested for a series of years, demand of the pro- prietor, on receiving a notice to quit, a partition of the farm, or the occupied field. 1 insist, therefore, sir, in view of all these facts, ents, and infe- rences, that Spaia had not encumbered her title be- tore she passed itto us. It was not affected by the convention of Nootka, and our title through Spain 1s, therefore, “clear and unquestionable.” I insist, also, Mr. President, that there is great propriety and manitest justice in according to jin all the benefits ot these principles ot British law to which 1 have referred, and which Great Britain had torced all nations to acknowledge ; because Spain had, for many years, made it a prominent feature in her policy to originate, and at great expense pro- mote,voyagesol discovery throughout the whele ex- tent of the northwest coast. So important, sir, was this object in her view, and so deepiy was it ingraf- ted upon her ore that she erected a distinct de- partment, (called the Marine Department of San Blas,) purposely to conduct explorations and surveys ot the northwest coast of America. She made, sir, allthe most important discoveries on that coast, and named its rivers, bays, capes, and headlands, and followed up her diecoveries by such settlements as were suited to her then condition; or if.no set uements followed, continual claim was made, which no nation questioned. And why, sir, I would ask, were we not entitled to the benefit of this asclaim ants under Spain of that very title which these acis of hers originated 4 \ of claim of Great Britain to an ot the no: west coast south of 54 40, ietola hank co tonal source she may now choose to select, it may be | found, sir, in the most solemn and Kopeaieg ing form. By the convention between the United States and Russia, le on the 17th of April, 1824, 1t was agreed that she rhould make no settlement south ot 54 40 north latitude, and we none north of thet parallel. It fact, in the history of that transae- uon, thatit contemplated to have, at that ti @ jot convention between England; Russia the United States; but after the annunciation by President Monroe of the non-colonization princi in regard to this continent, it was abandoned sepatate conventions were framed. Great Britain | being thus aware, sir, of this arrangement between | us and Ruesia, and wishing to secure the sovereign- ty and possession of a Pye of that coast, entered into negociations with Russia for that object; and by the convention of the 28th of February, 1825, more than ten monthe after the date of the conven- tion between the United States and Russia, Great Britain accepted a stipulation restricting her to the coast lying between 64 40 and 66 of north latitude. In thus accepting, sir, this restriction on the south, either Great Britain tacitly relinquished any sions to interfere with the territory of the United States, or the Russian Government underti to acon such interference (so far as she could doit y treaty) with the rights of the United States, so recently acknowledged by herself, under the solem- nity of treaty forms. The former is to be presi sir, rather than the latter; and a magnanimous spirii would attribute such acknowledgment by the Bri tish Government to a consciousness of the superior title of the United'States to that territory above all other nations, we having then the entire Spanish title, rather than to the tame submission of a nation possessing a power more extensive than that of me in the pienitude of her glory. It wares sir, that the arrangement betw2en Great Britain and Russia did not affect any conflict- ing claims as between Great Britain and the Maited States to any territory south of 54 40; but the value of this suggestion will be properly appreciated, sir, when it is considered, that in the negotiations be- tween the United States and Ruesia no notice was taken by either party of any claim whatever of Great Britain to any part of that territory ; which, it is not to be supposed would have been the case, had an’ known, well-fownded claim on the part of Great Bri- tain existed. A nation of her power would scarcely have been treated with so much indifference, not to say disregard, by the other contracting parties. joreover, sir, had Great Britain considered her- self, in 1824, as possessing any right over the territo- ry south ot 54 40, or had she considered herself as having ‘a claim not in respect to any part, but to the whole, limited to a right of joint occupancy in commun with States, leaving the right of do- minion in abeyance,” it is not to be imagined, aa observed by the present distinguished Envoy of Great Britain to our Government, (in speaking of the pretensions of Spain to the same territory,) that Great Britain “would have ively submitted to see the contending ciaims ot [Russia] and the United States to a portion of that territory the subject of formal diplomatic transactions between those two nations.” It was important, sir, to the interests of the United. States that an arrangement of this kind should be made with Russia after we had succeeded to title of Spain, as Russia had establishments on ee coast of very considerable antiquity at 58 and 50 degrees north latitude, composed ef several hundred individuals, and, on the principles of contiguity and continuity, might well have claimed a more south- ern boundary ; and she was the only power whose pretensions we might have found difficult to resist, ing coterminous with us in our extensjon north on the same principle of continuity; for it is ad- mitted, sir, on all sides, that the claim of Spain to Nootka at 49 30 is good, by virtue of her settie~ ment there, made in 1789. Kussia, then, extending south from 59, and the United States, under Spain, north from Nootka, would bring the line very fear the ov of 54.40, which these parties did in fact establish. Believing, Mr. President, the grounds set to be conclusive ot the title of the | United Sauer the territory in question from latitude 42 to 5440 north, Ido not deem it necessary to enter into a discussion of many considerations Pertaining tothe case which have been brought to our view by the able efforts of distinguished viplomatists. It mey, however, sir, not be inappropriate, as 1n close con- nexion with this subject, and as haviag a favorable colin | upon our title, to notice the just remarks ot Lord Bathurst, in his communication to our Secte- tary of State of the 30th of October, 1815, discus- sions being then pending as to the effect and opera- tion of the treaty of Ghent, but a short time previ- ous! ct fommr ied ~* Te will not lenied,” he said, “ that the mai object of the treaty of Ghent was the mutual rentiee ation of all territory taken by either party from the, other during the war. Asa necessary consequence of such a stipulation, each party reverted to their boundarves as before the war, without reference to the title by which these possessions were acquired, or to the mode in which thewr boundaries had been previously fixed. In point of fact, the United States had before acquired possession of territories asserted to on ee a than those which Great Britain could fer. Again, he says :— It is justly stated by the Ame- rican Minister, that the United States aa not need @ new grant of the boundary line. The war did not arise out of a contested boundary; and Great Bri- tain, therefore, by the act of treating with the United States recognised that nation in its dimensions, excepting so far as the jus bells in pele them hb id it was the object of the reaty of Ghent to cede such right it the jus belli had conferred.” ie rie ee ‘These remarks, sir, applied to the condition of the question concerning the territory of Oregon, will be seen to have a peculiar and powerful force. The jus belli, sir, had given to Great Britain the American settlement of Astoria at the mouth of the Columbia river—the symbol of our sovereignty and ttle there—the rightful possession of which had been acquired by us previously, and rested on “ other titles than those which Great Britain could confer.” The main object of the treaty of Ghent was, “the mutual restoration of alt territory taken by either party from the other during the war.” The United States claimed title to the whole territory in virtue ot discovery, exploration, and settlement, in their own right, and by ces- sion from France; and “without reference to As tothe true exposition of the public law, sir,| the title by which 1t was acquired,” - upon the question of title arising trom discovery ed to the right as it existed before i Rig orly, nothing conciusive can be urged. We have seen, sir, how Great Britain has understood anden-| of the territory of forced it. It cannot be contended, sir, in any view | the name ot the whole. forthwith to | by the unconditional surrender of this part, on the nt. As to that, | 6th of October, 1818, without any reservation what- of the question, that a nation is bound follow up a discovery by sett fore the war, sir, we had exclusive possession Oregon—of distinct parts in By the war we lost it; and her condition, tne exigencies of the State, must be | ever, we were from that moment, again in le; considered; but she must do some act which will | contemplation, be notice to the world that she is determined to ap- the exclusive possessi: came sovereigns de facto if not de are, ot the who propriate the discovery to herself. What particular | country claimed; the British G act this shall be, is not settled. It must, in the na-| their authorised fanctionary, adenciag = on po ture of the subject, depend on very many circum-| most ample extent, our right to i plied. Yet] to be the party, bed possession while treating of the ritat stances—no invariable rule can be a soine act must be ge evincing this design of ap- propriation ; but at wi at time, must always be an| right to be be title.” Grei 2 is esto; possession by from denying our rT own acknow! open question. Spain did as mnch to notify the | ment; she cannot now contest it. This right of world of her intention as any oiher nation, that is | possession, sir, we now, and from thence, have certain, which had originated discoveries. Another view of this convention, Mr. President, | right, exce, asatoundation of claim by Great Britain, may, | our part. wholly enjoyed ; and we cannot be deprived of the by force or by a voluntary cession on javing thus, sif, our sovereignty acknow- with propriety, be urged. Whilst it was, as now | ledged, tourteen days after the restoration of Asto- in is by Great Britain, in full force, why did she, | ria, on the 201 of October, 1818, without an 18, before we had acquired the Spanish ttle, | valent whatever—unless i equi the concessions in the ret voluatarily enter into the convention with us, on | article of the convention of that date were intended the 20ch of October of that year, so inconsistent as | by the high contracting in under the | we agreed with Great terpiuory she not base | “ shall, together with its harbors, bays and locke, be ements with it is, with her rad And why di Nootka convention her pretensions at that time, as she does now, on | and the navi its “texts and stipulations,” and not on ‘ vugue | free and ope: narratives of discoveries, some of them admitted to | of the signature of be apocryphal?” If she really believed the conven- | vessels, citizens, and tion of « ootka was in foree at that time, it is in-| it being well understood that this comprehensible that she should not have urged it. | to be construed to the to do a0, bir, these aa Teoaalt erwise, she could inferences are fair | either ot the two high contracting + Ist, That Great Britain no longer | to any part of the said country, nor considered it in existence or binding upon her; oth- | to ai the claims of any py pewer or State to not have violated her obligations | any pact of the said country; the only rties as an ivalent +! Britain, that ‘_ , jon of all rivers within the the core cf fon youre tress present convention, to the subjects of the two powers ; Prejudice of any claim which to Spain, by covering the same ground in a treaty | high contracting parties, in that respect, being to with another power. 2d, That, by transferring her | prevent disputes and di obligations from Spain to the United States, Great Britain thereby acknowledged a right in the United | no claim on the part of Great Britain to States, independently of Spain, as existing in virtue | territory there—no_sovere’ Ser nape and | no territorial jurisdiction w supposed | casement granted to Great Britain for the sole pur- ot our well-known prior diecove: pr , pn) settlement, This convention jootka, J erences among themeelves.” This convention, sir, it will be perceived, — a EAE by Great Britain in 1818 to be extinct, and not al | pose of preventing disputes and differences be- luded to, was made an element in the controversy, by our own Minister in 1824,who brought it forwara under instrucuon from his Government. Thus forbearing, sir, in 1818, to present her claim ander the Nootka convenuon, Great Britain cau now repose on no other right than that, gratuitously. without any equivalent whatever, ted to her subjects by the convention with us of that year, anc indefinitely contunued by the convention of the 6: ot August, 1827 ; for, bv :he conclusion ot the forme: treaty, she Consiuered and treated that ot 1790 witt Spain as a nullity, and, thus regarding it, 1t tollows. as a necessary aud :n-vitable Consequence, that, a [LA momen ag nent of we wwere the periy ie possession, the right sovereignty resided in United States. conscious Want strong proot of the Should it be necessary, Mr. President, to adduce Meroe og tween the yarties through collisions their citizens and aeons originated tives ofspolicy. British traders, after the capture in 1818, sought the country in great numbers, enrich- tog themselves from its wild juctions, with whom our own bess pesy Frorbae § by fyb might come in collision, from which angry disputes andnational ifficulties might ensue. It wes deem- d politic, sit, uader such circu to license his use of the country for ten years, as it was not hen needed for any national purpose, or expected it that day ever to become an important appendage to our Union. I shall not say, sir, that this conven- don was nota wise arrangement at the time it was entered into. No right in Great Britain is acknow- edged by it. There is n0 such yoke} ne ition e: Great Britain the to any part pal or of