IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // k<^ ^^ /. fc 1.0 1.1 1.25 ui lifS £ 1^ 12.0 HtUu y. 11.6 6" Photographic Sciences Cbrporation 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WnSTM.N.Y. :45M (716)S73-4S03 ^Ju '^.V^ '^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductlons / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The tot The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of tMs copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag6e □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculAe D D D D n n Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque nn Coloured maps/ D Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReliA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re iiure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lore d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6ti filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/oi Pages restauries et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxe< Pages ddcolor^es. tachet^es ou piqudes I — I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ PyT^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ □ Pages detached/ Pages d^tachies r^7| Showthrough/ I — I Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ n Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible If. Thfl poa ofl filn Orii bee the sioi oth firs sioi ori The sha TIN whi Mai diff enti beg righ reqi met Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es A nouveau de fagon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est iWrni au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X XX i \y' 1 12X 18X aox MX 28X 32X 1 The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thanke to the generosity of: Metropolitan Toronto Libranr Canadian History Department L'exemplaire filmi fut reprodult grAce A la ginirosit* de: Metropolitan Toronto Library Canadian History Department The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Las images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet* de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmfo en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmfo en commenqant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^»- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols —^ signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signific "FIN". l\/laps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent 6tre f ilmfo i des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reprodult en un seul cliche, 11 est film6 d partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche it droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 if V \\ V a- y 4? THACTS ON THl . «. « .vT^ 4 ^ '% - V OREGON aUESTION. "I / / . ■.»' <;.*■ .«,■ « S f^it •* BY AN AMERICAN. ...v^. •.•/;.• **N NEW YORK W. TAYLOR, 9 A8T0R HOUSE-BALTUORB, W. TAYLOR It CO. 1846. r hlmriiiffMfyiwi ^iitii ■i^-0 ?b\' Kim- y 9' '^ ■ V It's *' •* t o^ ^f \* V. JUN20 19$S «-N.. .?*«» 'V '4t * * *vi> .#■ TUCfftOlCIM: OREOtm dtKiftoif, «'U" iMbM MBlriM fethM bUaima bf VatttkCk U, |uj|^^ ik«iaiitfflttjM>> opontty wfa>y Ubitod Md wilhoata aBMftTt H way Uwfolly tatopoi Mwiim Hdt mpasi, it cHUUrt 1m^^ IpiTdltifitbyaaodMr. Thai afMrifMocp goiag on Ow diwoTwy* fmmiiiti witliaoomini«ioDfhunUidrwv««igB,MdinMti^ ^ dMIKt «00lltri«it jbttYWttkMl fMMMktl^ ^ ,.^ AU tid« h— hMm oobmbobIt ■ ■■ n oi liid v yxniimAiii wm- •oon tOmt f#^ l«W«&bf«rMlpOiMMiOB. ' BaiU ia qoMtioasd whatW a utioB nwr not UmiippfOp^ by aPMtaly tiUoff poiMHiMof • ooiiQtiy« wUoh i( rMl^ doM iMt ooMf^ •dt li&tbia munM iMO^ to itaplf oiaeb not* thM it k aU* to F9^ eoMvato. UiaaotdilBMiU to'datovifOna^tbatnehAJNt^^ abMibitely coatrwy to tba law, and oppiMito to tha ▼!««» of Htfnnb wb^ gjUP ^^g aithiniMAtaMpply thawantaof maaitt MBiaraLtv tolM^ i«ti&tht rifbt of appsopriatiiy toitnlf a eoiutiy bot Car tbo oao it o^Mf of it> and iMrt to Uadwr odkaca ficooi laapioiliig it. Tbo law of iimM|i thMi only aoiuMvlodgaa tbapcopor^ aad soToraifQ^ of a Mtioft of^ inbaUtod oa«iitiiit> of wbieb t|My aball ipUy. aiid bi «iet^ tak» foaMr aion,bi wbiflbtb^ ahaU gam aat l| a p ia » a, or of wbJch tb«y ihilIaHk•M• ''tlil i|aa« ; ,- 'InnaU^t wbioaai^fltMabwr* "to* ""^^ dsa^ 09!PWipi»i» «|lli thaMif oOiat MNioaa bittatao tod aMw aaotpn^Ma to abiMf *a^ N^ •bomilMiC fid»«a«Mioiqrr tbpi«i it fKooadad fiPMi tb» j; a p1atM. ict is to compel dis* covers of uuiuhabited countries, to niaittj kintwu tu ittd rest of the world, without any n^^edtess delay, wliat ara iheic tutriiiiiuM ,i4 regirds the ooott^ tries discovered— whether tliey mean to avail iheinoulveauf their newly aO> quired rights by appropriating ilie re«iilii of iheir ditc i>reries M th -ir owa ose, or not. MankinJ Ituvaii:! > )vi (m.iu I V'jr/ i.ii i »■ 1 1'. iaterjst tu tcujw* ing this, and thcTefore have a rigtit lo know it ' If a discoverer were allowed to keop IiIh ■.iimitinii't lo iiiinself— il'he could do this without iinpariiig his right, the H<3ttleiii:iiii ot iti* uewlv discovered country might be long deiayeiJ, to die pri-jn'liuH •)' im t i mJ u- l>irge. O.her adventurers might liesitate to !ittem|>t the gettleinrnt nUx country ho oituated | for such attempts would al wuvs he liuUI:' to l)i> ititcrro • I'^il hikI i'riiNi rated by the original discoverers, and aucIi inu'rrii{>ti>iii>t >m we know, universally adopted. The same mode, it seems, may also be employed in the case of an iodi* vidnal discoverer ; and indeed we cannot readily see what contrivance, ax* cept actual landing and actnal taking possession in his own name, and th* publication of these fiMts, together with an account of the discovery, oonld answer his purpose. An individual in such a case, we apprehend, would be bound to declare his inteutions, with all the formally, and in the most aolemu mauner, which the natnro of the case admitted. If he could land and take possession, he would be bound to do so, and ought not to content himself with sim|>ly declaring his intentions in the published account of his diacuvery. A declaration so made might not command that confidence lb his sincerity, which an actual landing and taking possession, when practicable, could hardly fail to inspire. But when a landing is imprao* Jcable ur dtugerous, that, it seems, should excuse the omission ; for if hat fact is stated, together with the intentions of the discoverer in the pub* (Ishfld account of the discovery, the reason of the omission will be seen, and such omiMion will furnish no ground for doubting whether or not ha it in earnest in the claim which he pretends to set up. In the course of oprietjr tb« lolding, tbat id under the aational dis • m an aotaal ition whose it of this ce- >portnni^ ia ) step* hare 7 be reqoir mder it, and rery and re- king formal to be eaten- itionaof the >1I, provided known both mation, and M delivered modes may most never, ist ; and haa d. > of an faidi* rivanee, ex- me, and the ivery, conld end, wonld in the moat ) could land It to content I account of t confidence ision, when { is imprae* tion; for if in the pub- ill be seen, sr or not he le course of ttiese tracts, we shall probably have occasbn to submit some Ihrther ob- servations on the' subject of the publicity which an individual discoverer of an uninhabited country, claiming the fruits of his discovery, is bound to give to such discovery and claims: and the different modes which he may pursue in making them public. We shall reserve them, however, for another place, conceiving that we have said enough on that count for the present. Our next head of remark, is the second condition of the third rule, ris that the newly discovered country shall be actually occupied and settled within a reasoLable time. This also, it will be seen on reflection, is an in- dispensable condition. The interests of mankind require that the country should be settled with all convenient speed, and without this condition the ultimate settlement of the country is likely to be retarded by the discovery, rather than accelerated; for in every case of such a discovery, there is al- ways a strong probability that if the discovery had not been made at that particular time and by that particular nation or adventurer who actually made it, the same or some equivalent discovery soon would have been made by some other adventurer, or some other nation^ who would have taken measures for oobnixing it; and by allowing the actual discoverer to take hia own time for settling the country, the world is cut off from the benefit of this contingency, ao long aa he remains^naotive. Hence the necessity of ■ holdiog, that if the first discoverer sleeps upon his exclusive rights, he lose tiiem, and the country is then open to all mankind. Mens. Vattel, we acknowledge, has not expressly said that such are the oonsequences ; but we ctmtend that those conseqnencef are plainly involved in what he has said— for he statea in the passage above cited, that when the required oetemonies have been used, the title so acquired ' has been com- monly respected, provided it has been afterwards followed by • real pea- aeasion ;' and agab, in the same passage, he observes in substance, a litde further on, that 'the law of nations only acknowledges the rights]of an origi- nal discoverer to uninhabited countries of which they shall really and in hct take possession, in which they shall form settlements, or of which they shall make actual use.' The n ec essary consequence is, that if the original discoverer neglecta to take actual posseaion and commence the setdement of the country, or commence nnng it in some way, within a reasonable f|* riod of time, which must of course be greater or less, according to the cir- onnutanoes of each case, the country will ftll-to the first occupant, let him be who he may. We shall here add, that, in our judgmnfiti. if such first oc- cupant, when he first enters the country, cluma the w^Ie of it, and if hir resources for settling it are such that in all human pirobabili^ he will be able within a reasonable time to fill it with a population of reasonable imuA- [ \ 8 tff hit oldm oaght to b« rMpcetad. Bat if b* daiot n Mtint of oooatiy •llogetbor dkproportioBwl to mmIi nao u r em, thon tho rwt of the world li nut boaad to roipoot tooh claim bojond tho liniti wfaieh tbooo rMoorooo will iUrlf womnt, andor a liboral viow of tho aoljoct— and tho nat of tho oonatry will bo opoa to ono or aMn« adtaatorera, aooording to its axtoot It •ooou oMontial that OTory ooonpant of aach a ooantry ihoald dUtioetly auko known what part ho intend* to oooopj, which, in tho oaao of oolonioo plant od by a aovoreiga nation, may oaaily bo done in tho shape of public grauta orcbartora, doty anthentioatod and famiAhed to the ooloniati, or by logiala* tiTo acta, clothing thorn in either oaae, with tho neodfal anthority, and do* fining tho limita of their retpoctivo Mttlomento, or by public prookmatiao to the mmo effect In the cmo of independent ooloniet planted by indifi* dnalt, if aach a thing ihoald bo attempted, (la it may be according to tho •boTO reoaoning, when an individual can command the necoaaary moana and aecnre tho neodfal protection,) other modtta might bo retorted to ; bat wo need not atop to point them out at preaont In troth, we mo no roaaon why original ditooverers proceeding to colonixo a coantry ihoald not be hold to aome nioh reatrietion, for no colony, aa Mom. Vattol clearly atatea, aboold bo allowed to graap at more territory than it con improve, to theozoIoaioB of other adrontorora, who might improve it. Wo have now ahown, aa wo think, that the Moond and third mlea above etatod, are fairly dndociblo fifom the above remarka of Mona. Valtel, and are porfoctly reaaonabIe~>and in> deed not merely reatonablo, bat indiiponaably necoaaary to a joit doeiaion , then everj original diacoverer, whaterer might be the merita and value of bit dis« oovery, would be liable to be immediately deprved, to a great extent, if not ^ altogether, of thn fair reward of hit toil and peril*, by the first adventurer > who might be emboldened by hit tuocett, and enabled by the knowledge by him communicated to the world, to follow him in the tame path of dia* covery, and to get beyond him in the extent, minuteness, and accuracy ol hit researches. To allow thit would be to discourage enterprise in this line, rather than to encourage it. The tendency of such a principle would be to defeat the rule which assigns to discoverers the fruits of their discov- eries, and to make all newly discovered uninhabited countries the subject of a general scramble among mankind. And though it may be difiicult to lay down any general rule, by which secondary discoveries con be always dis- tingiiiithed from the original discoveries, yet there ought to be, and no doubt there is, a distinction between them. If the original discoverer does enough to establish fully the existence ot a country previously unknown — to bring mankind fairly acquainted with its principal, or most accessible outline, he has done enough, we think, to enti* tie him to the reward which the law of nations holds out to him. He hat justly earned an exclusive right to the whole country, or so much of it at he is able to occupy , or is likely to want within a reatonable time, to be liber- ally measured. If, however, the extent of the country is such, that he ev- idently cannot occupy it wholly, other adventurers will do him no injustice by occupying such parts at he cannot occupy. But a claim to a portion of the country by other adventurert on this ground, is a very different thing from claiming such portions on the ground of original discovery, when, in fact such discovery is merely secondary iu point of time, at well at iu im- portance—when it it nothing more than a mure full and accurate explor- ation of regiont, a general knowledge of which has been previously acquired and published by another. II the information obtained and published by the original discoverer it tufficient to render feaaible a project for beginning totettle the ditcovered country, that, we think, is enough, in general, to re- dace all tubsequent discoveries in the tame field, to a tecondary rank, and preclude all future olaima to the country or any part of it, on the ground of ditcovery alone. Another quettion connected with thit tubject it, whether the discovery of an uninhabited country by a mere private individual can in any case in- ure to the benefit of the nation to which it belongs T We think it cannot, •zcept with hia content. If he taket potietaioa in the name of hit nation, #■ 10 % ■i I m i it i and the nation in dae time lignifiet her approbaUon of the act, that nndoabt> edij will vest in the nation the rights which the difcovery vetted in hinuelf. There can be no reaaonable objection to tbit mode of tranaferring his rights, any more than to a formal auignment Bat tuppoie he take* poHenion in hit own name, and prooeeda to plant an independent colony ; can his coontry Jmtly claim the soil and sovereignty of the ground ocoopied by that col> onyt In oar opinion, she cannot We know of no rule of the law of na- tioDs which forbids individuals to establish independent governments, if they can, in ceantries to which no existing government has any right. Saoh a rale would conflict directly with the rule above laid down, viz. that when •uch a country is discovered by a private adventurer, he is entitled to the fruits of hu discovery — it would be at variance with the policy of that rule, which is to encourage private enterprise in this line of discovery. But sap • pose that an individual claims the fruits of his discovery, and yet does no- thing to realise them — that he neither proceeds to colonize the country him- aeir, nor disposes of his lights to another — will that right devolve upon bis country T To this we answer, no. Such a mode of dealing with his right, is an abandonment of that right to all mankind — or in other words, a waiver of it in favour of the first occupant. There is no rule of national law, which in such a case, assigns the right especially to his own country. There is no need of such a rule— it could do no good — it could not tend to promote the discovery and settlement of unknown regions, which is the object of all rules on the subject. A newly discovered couatry is as likely to be settled, when the right to settle it is vested in all mankind, — when it belongs to the first occupant, — as when it is vested in a particular nation and more so. It is obvious that these remarks are equally applicable to the cose oi a private adventurer, who, afler having discovered an uninhabited country, makes no claim to it at all. This also is a waiver of bis rights in favor of the first occupant. In strictness, the remarks here submitted on the present topic, are all no donbt implied in tiie general rule above laid down, viz. that ittdividual di*- ooverers are entided to the fruits of their discoveries. But we have thought U necessary to state our views on the subject explicitly and at large, ud leave nothing to inference, even although it may Involve repetition. Another fitting topic ot remark under the present head of ot^r subject is ttie qaestion. whether a nation proceeding to occupy an uninhabited ooanlry, either on the groond of discovery, or on the ground that the discoverer baa waived hia rights by neglect, can content beraelf with a mere military ueeo* patioD of the ooantry without attempting to convert it to the purpoaea «f n Bgricaltare or commerce ?— whether if the does ao, thit it not to be coniid ered as an abate and perrernon of her righia— -aa eqaivalent *-> a neglect to use fhem, which entitles other nations to dispossess her 7 Withoat doabt, the end aimed at bj the law of nations in assigning the soil and sovereign^ of such countries to the fittt discoverer, or the first occupant, as the case muj be, is the settlement of the country by a miscellaneous population, and the deTelopement of its agricultural and commercial resources, for the good of the world at lUrge. But even a military occupation, which consists, of course, in the establishment of military posts in different parts of the coun- try, has a manifest tendency to the ultimate formation of agricultural and commercial settlements, since military posts naturally draw such settle- ments around them. In many cases indeed, this is the best, and perhaps the only way, of beginning the settlement of such countries ; for it is seldom that countries newly discovered are found to be entirely without inhabi- tants. They have generally a thin population of savages, withont any set- tled habitation — without agriculture, commerce, or arts — and when so peopled, they are, not without reason, regarded by the law of nations, for all practical purposes, as uninhabited. Military posts are essential to the defence of settlers against such a population ; and how far they are necessa ry, and how long anch a system requires to be kept up, every nation, under- taking to colonize a new country, mutt of necessity be left to judge for it- self. The evils resulting from any interference of other nations in matters of this sort, would greatly outweigh all other considerations. The same ob- servations will apply to the occupation of such a country by the establish- ment of posts for the mere purpose of trading with the savages already all luded to, or for other similar purposes. They have a tendency to fill uj the country by degrees, though not as rapidly as settlements formed for the ex^ press purposes of agriculture. But this difference will not warrant the in- terference of other nations.' A suggestion has been recently made that a nation may acquire an ex- dosive title, as against some particular nation, which is not exclusive against some other nation. We do not perceive how this can be, except in a case where one of the two nations has been notified of the discovery and the title daimci aaddr it, and the other not. For supposing all nations to be alike aware of both, a disoovery cannot be an original discovery as to one nation, and not as to another. If original at all, it is original as to all the world. , The next head of our sabject vrill be the Nootka Convention. m XT', i' \ f i- f IS NO. III.-NOOTKA CONTBIYTIOIV. Thi Nootx a Cokventio n . — According to the principles laid down by Mr. Vattel, whatever exclasive title Spain bad aoqaired to the North Weat coaat by her diacoveries in that qaarter before the date of thia convention, it clear- ly appears to us that she had waived auch title by her neglect of the coon- try long before the convention was signed. She had known the coantry long enough and well enough to have ventured upon the eatablishment of a colony or colonies upon aome part or parts of the coast. As far as it depend- ed upon the mere knowledge of the coast she might have established colo- nies along its whole line, from the 42d to the 58th parallel of North latitade, as far back as 1650. But in 1789, when she expelled Meares from his set- tlement at Nootka Sound, she had not formed a single settlement on any part of the coast — she had not occupied a foot of the country in any way. If this was not a waiver of her rights on the ground of discovery, nothing could be. It c ertainly was so ; and it left the country open to all mankind — not indeed, wo think, for the purposes of discovery, but for the purpoaes of colonization. Her discoveries had been of such a character, and were ■0 well known, that although there was yet much left to explore, there was nothing left for original discovery ; no discovery made in that quarter after the voyage of Fonte, could have any thing more than a secondary character Even the discoveries of Cook below the latitude of 58°, important and valnable as they undoubtedly were — unsurpassed and nnsprpassable in mi- nuteness and accuracy, in extent and interest — belonged to this class, for the simple, but all-sufficient reason, that other navigators had preceded, and traced the line of coast long before him. We think we should hazard no- thing in affirming that Spain knew as much of that coast in 1650, as Europe, in genera], knew of the cousl which we now occupy in 1600. Why then did the not attempt to people it f Simply because she did not think it worth the trouble— because she had enough of more inviting territory to colonize* She therefore thought proper to neglect it ; this was to abandon it to thA first oconpant — to waive her right to it in favour of all mankind — and her persisting to clawi it, in spite of this waiter, whether on the ground of ori- ginal discovery or on the ground of papal decrees, was a vain pretence, This pretence, she was compelled to yield in the case of Meares. The de- mand of satisfaction made upon her by England, for the injury done to Meares, was an implied, but unequivocal denial of her exclusive title— it was an implied, bat clear affirmation that Spain stood in regard to this country upon the same footing with all the other nations of the earth— that she had a right in common with them, to occupy at any time, such parts of the coan- try as might not at sach time be already occupied, and nothing further. By 13 agreeing to make the satisfaction, «he acquiesced in this denial. She admit* ted this affirmation. She made the satisfaction — bat she did not in fact re- store the settlement of Meares, although that was a part of the agreement •—why she did not restore it, does not appear. But whether she ever made the satisfaction or not, and whether she ever restored the settlement or not,'' is of no consequence whatever; it is enough that she agreed to do so. This agreement was a solemn, deliberate admission, publicly made in the face of the whole earth, that she had no exclusive claim to any part of that country. And that admission was irrevocable— once made, nothing could destroy its effect— nothing could alter it one jot or tittle, but the genered consent of all the world. England could not release her from it ; for it was an admission in favour of all mankind — all mankind bad a right to insist on it. It is in vain to contend that this convention was canceled by the war, which occurred be»:{ tween England and Spain in 1796. The war did not effect this admission, even as regarded England — itcould not. That a war cancels all previous treaties between the belligerent nations, is a general rule which we do not deny, if nothing more is meant by the rule, than merely that it cancels all un- executed promises contained in those treaties. But if it is meant to be as- serted, that a war cancels any admission either of facts, or of principles of national law, which those treaties contain, then we do deny the rule in the most positive terms. That effect it cannot have, unless it can have the effect of recalling the past, or of obliterating it from the memory of mankind. — And even such unexecuted promises, when they involve admission of facts or principles, are not wholly cancelled by war. Whatever remains of the promise to be performed is discharged, but the admission involved in it stands untouched. The promise in this case to make satisfaction for the in- jury done to Meares, involved a double admission. It admiffted a fact, and it admitted a principle. The fact admitted was that Spain had neglected the country — the principle admitted was, that ihii* neglect was by the law of na- tions a waiver of her exclusive right to the country. To say that the war canceled these admissions is a sheer absurdity. It is as much as to say that the occurrence of a war between nations prevents any one from ever after- wards appealing to any p/evious treaty as proof of any fact whatever,although acknowledged therein in the clearest terms. It is to say that all such trea- ties by the occurrence of war cease, ipto facto, to be legal evidence for eve- ry purpose, either between nations or between individuals ; that courts of justice cannot receive them, even to show that they ever had any existence. But every one knows that this cannot be so. This very provision in the case of Meares suggests a most striking ill us- tration of the effect of war on treaties; for il Spain had not already pftid Meares bis indemnity when the war occurred in 1796, that occurrence would 2 « prt ib - u I bavo canceled the obligation to pay him ; but yet the fact impliedly admitted by the engagement to pay him, would atill have stood as an admitted fact, and all the world would then, as well as now, have had a right to urge it against Spain as unanswerable proof of this fact oat of her own mouth. And just BO of the principle of international law involved in the engagement — the whole world then, as well as now, would have had a right to insist that she was estopped from ever after controverting that principle. The distincdouis perfectly plain — nothing can be plainer — and it is strange — ' 'tis passing strange ' — that Presidents and Secretaries of State, and Mem* bers of Congress and State Governors, and they lawyers too, have been nn- able to perceive it; or if they have perceived it, that they have not had the candor to acknowledge it. Had it been a distinction in their own favour they would not, we think, have been slow to discern it, or slack to urge it. But this double admission of Spain— first of the iactthat she had neglect* ed this country, and next of the legal consequence of the fact, viz., that she bad thereby waived her exclusive right to it, whatever this right might have been, and that the country was then open to all mankind, as if once were not solemn enough, is contained twice in this very convention : or by the third article, it was agreed that the respective subjects of the two powers should not be disturbed or molested in landing on the North West Coast in parts not already occupied, either for the purpose of trading with the natives or of making setllemenla there. This was an admission on the part of Spain, that England hod as good a right to form settlements in that country as she bad hetself. And upon what ground 7 Not of original discovery certainly —for England was not in fact the original discoverer, and her statesmen did not contend tor that. Had there been any chance of success in taking that ground, they would have taken it — they would have claimed for England an exclusive right to the whole country, or, at least, some specific portion of it. They would never have consented to admit that Spain had any equal right with England to a foot of country which England could possibly cover with an exclusive claim. On what ground then, we again ask, did Spain make the admission 7 There was no ground for it except the ground which we have pointed out, viz., that Spain had neglected the country — had thereby waived her exclusive right to it, and thrown it open to all the world. It has been argued by one of our Secretaries of State, that by the term ' settlements' used in the third article of this convention, nothing more is meant than temporary settlements for the purpose of trading with the na> tives ; not permanent colonies. But this we do not scruple to say is a mis- erably weak suggestion, uVerly groundless, utterly destitute of the least shadow of plausibility. In commenting on that term, aa it occurs in this mpliedly admitted an admitted fact, a right to urge it : owD moatb. And I engagement— the It to insist that she 5. ir — and it is strange of State, and Mem* too, have been an- y have not had the their own favonr ir slaclK to urge it. at she had neglect* I fact, viz., that she ia right might have as ii'oDce were not }n : or by the third two powers should ^est Coast in parts vith the natives or n the part of Spain, that country as she discovery certainly d her statesmen did iccessin taking that med for England an pacific portion of it. bad any equal right possibly cover with isk, did Spain make 1 we have pointed ;hereby waived her :e, that by the term in, nothing more is fading with the na- iple to say is a mis- [tistitute of the least 08 it occurs in this 16 Article, he puts the question, ' What kind of settlements?' The answer it plain enough. It means, of coarse, any kind of settlements ; for the term is used without any restriction, qaalifioation, or modification whatever, and according to all known rules of interpretation, it must be understoood in a generic and not in any specific sense. The grammatical construction of the sentence clearly requires this. ' What kind of settlements V There is no need of asking any such question — there is no need of answering it; or if it must be answered, we answer it by referring the interrogator to his gram> mar — to his books of rhetoric, of logic and of law ; and if he cannot learn from these what '^kind of settlements' was meant, let him burn them. — They can do him no good— he can learn nothing. To say that the word set- tlements, used in this article, does not mean settlements of any kind — set- tlements in general, for any and all purposes — permanent settlements aa well as temporary settlements — colonies if you please, is to do violence to lan- guage. It is to wrest words, to pervert them from their plain, obvious meaning ; and to carry this construction out into practice, would be to evade the treaty by a wretched quibble — to break it by a miserable piece of so phistry. In truth, the whole argument of the learned Secretary on the construction of this convention, is evasive and sophistical throughout, and its evasions and its sophistry are mingled with assumptions palpably false. The learned Secretary has represented that the ' trading with the natives' spoken of in this article of the ti^eaty was to be the purpose of the settle- ments. This is not so — the ' trading' as will clearly appear from a gram- matical analysis ot the sentence was to be one of the purposes of the ' land- ing' — the formation of ' settlements' was to be another — and other and fur- ther purposes there conld not be ; or these, at least, include all others which can possibly be imagined. The Secretary contends, in substance, that Spain dould never have in- tended by this article to relinquish 'the ultimate sovereignty of the coaa« try which she had claimed for near three hundred years.' He says, the treaty ' contains no provision' for this. Here is an assumption that she had the sovereignty, and that England acknowledged her sovereignty. Bui that is begging the question. The denial of her sovereignty by England was the very occasion of the convention, — it was the cause of the dispute. — The convention ' contains no provision* indeed? There needed none ; lor England contended that Spain had no sovereignty to yield, and all she want ed was that Spain should admit this — directly or indirectly — impliedly or expressly — no matter how. The simple admission, in whatever words con- veyed was enough : and words appear to have been carefully chosen for the purpose, as well with the view to spare as much as possible the pride of .^ 16 h ^ 8paiD,as to the efficient conveyance of that admission. She was reqaired to retract the claims to thut country of which she had boasted herself for ' three hundred years,' and for an alleged infraction of which she had lately rebuked Russia. This she was glad enough to do— tor she was conscious that her claim could not bear to be tested by the law of nations — she was conscious of thasted herself for ich she bad lately le was conscious nations — she was ikness. and of (he saw that the time r ' three hundred without requiring ^ord at her throat, The Secretary re- el by any Europe- led acquiescence, ;quiesceuce at all, id violated the ter- f610. The reply )wn version of it, \\ diplomatic letter It letter at baud to that she 'was ox* le subjects of Bus- onging to another ibjects did contia* 1° and Russia now on foot, and Rus> ght say in her de« it is that this oc- convention was that coast, root >g the things that select and occupy. It was, in effect, a cession of territorial rights. Thit it appears to us, most clearly would have been the case ftpon the snpposi* tion just made, and if we are correct in this view, the war of 1796 could not have any effect on the clause. It is not necessary however to contend for this view of the subject ; for the ground, taken by England undoubtedly was, that . Spain had no exclu- sive right to any part of the country— the third article as well as the first and second articles (providing for compensation to Meares) is a clear and unequivocal admissiou of this ground by Spain, and that admission the war certainly- could not effect, as we have already shown. The Secretary could not see the convention iu this light, and it was not the business of England, with her views upon that country, to tell him and in telling him, to tell all the world, in plain, set terms, that she regarded that country as open; at the date of the Nootka convention, to all mankind ; for this might have suggested the question whether it is not so yet, and such a suggestion, it is perhaps her policy to avoid as long as she can. Instead, therefore, of answering the Secretary by plainly declaring what, in her view, are the specific principles of that convention, she has contented her- self with referring to them in general terms, as cuttingoff all questions con- cerning the original discovery of the country, and leaving the Secretary to infer in what way ;— hoping, no doubt, that our government would not on- ly perceive her meaning, but be prudent enough to say nothing publicly about the matter. Indeed it seems quite probable that this policy in part dictated the language of that convention, and excluded from it an express acknowledgement on the part of Spaiu that she had long before waived her exclus^e right to the Njrth West Coast. It was not the intention of ei- ther party to say too plainly that all the world had as good a right there as herself. We shall resume and conclude this branch of our subject in the next number. sive right to the ect of the clause, ws both the con- transfer to Eng- rt owner of the ivided share -it imon with Spain ; ereignty of such om time to time, nrO- IF.— FAI knowledgment of simple and elementary principles consecrated by the law of nations.' So perhaps it might appear to him, viewing it, as he did, through the medium of his own preconceived notion of the exclnsivo right of Spain to the N. W. Coast— the notion that this treaty was meant to give to England an interest in that quarter of the globe which she had not before " and had never claimed until then. But this idea is a mere assumption— it begs the question as already observed. To talk in this way is frivolous and even ridiculous, especially in a state paper. If these remarks should perchance fall nnder his notice, we hope they may serve to lift the veil wbioh.seeDU to have obscured his vision in looking at this convention. We must indeed advise him to look at it again. If he can but divest himself of this notion— if he will bat admit into his mind for a single moment^ and for the sake of argument only, that this convention was meant to be a solemn renunciation on the part of Spain of all exclusive pretensions to that country, the hypoUiesis will be immediately converted into a reality, and the whole matter will be perfectly clear to him. He will then see that, by agreeing to compensate Meares, Spain admitted him to be no trespasser — that thia admission followed ont to its consequences involves the further admission, that the country was open to all the world. He will also see that if he had IK^^ SO hi' ■« *t:' 1 K: beeo hinaseiratraly wise man, a prpfound itatesman, a Bkilful diplomatiat, and a sound and sagarious lawyer, be would have been at no loss to discover all this in the beginning ; and finally he will perceive that we should then have been spared the trouble of pointing out to him a thing so plain. The Secretary has mode several other observations, in this dispute as well as in the first, very much of the same character, which we cannot now stop to refute. To answer them specifically would require a kind of runniog commeatary upon each of his letters ; and for that we have neither time nor room, nor would the public have patience to peruse it, especially as in executing such a task we should be obliged to quote every sentence he has written. ^ As long as this article on the Nootka convention is, we cannot refrain from adding something further to what we had already said, as to the effect of the war of 1796 on this convention. The very great importance of this point, we hope, will he deemed a suiBcient excuse. The provision made by Spain in this instrument, that she would notdia* turb the settlements which England might form in unoccupied parts of the country, was undoubtedly abrogated by the war. If the convention had not mentioned trade or commerce in any way, then it could not have been con- tended, as it has been by England, that the treaty of 1314, by providing fur the renewal of all commercial treaties, renewed this provision. The pro- mise would then have been gone — but the principle of that promise would have remained, viz, that the country was by the law of nations open to all the world, and this admidsion alone without the promise, would have been sufficient to protect such settlements from all interference of Spain. The Secretary, having failed to perceive at all the admission on the part of Spain, which this convention contains, has left that part of the argument of ids adversary which is based on the convention, entirely unanswered. In troth, it is unanswerable. We have no hesitation in saying that as a legal question, there is no manner of doubt that this convention pat an end to all exclusive pretension* to the N. W. Coast on the ground of discovery — to those of England, if she ever made any, as well as those of Spain. It declared in substance that by the law of nations, the country was open to all the world, or in other words, to the first occupant; and if any man were now to claim, under a grant from Spain of the date of 1800 for example, lands in that country which others had already occupied, there is no intelligent and impartial tribunal on earth that would not decide against him. It would be held that under the law of nations such a grant was void, independently of the Nootka convention ; and that if the point was subject to any doubt independently of the convention, ful diplomatilt, loss to discover KB should then plain. dispnte as well annot now atop lind of running ire neither time especially as in sentence he has lot refrain from to the effect of portance of this 1 would not dia- led parts of the ivention had not : have been con- ty providing fur ion. The pro- f that promise of nations open ise, would have ace of Spain, ion on the part if the argument mans we red. In ion, there is no live pretensions England, if she bstance that by in other words, er a grant from f which others ibunal on earth ider the law of onvention ; and le convention, 91 the admission implied in that iDstmment on the part of Spain, removed all anch doubt. That this is the law of the case, we will undertake to main- tain against all the Presidents and Secretaries and all the diplomatists and Members of Congress, who ever pat pen to paper or uttered a word upon this Oregon Quettion. It does really seem as if some strange infatuation had taken possession of the minds of oar public men on this sabjeot, that they cannot perceive or will not admit one of the plainest principles of public law. They, in effect require of England that she shall recede from ground which she took and ■uccessfuUy mamtained against Spain in the affair of Meares ; ground aa« qaestiimably correct, and to which the United States have since solemnly assented on more than one occasion— have done it even in the negotiation now pending, as we shall presently show. Do they not see this ? Or seeing it, are they determined to undertake the desperate task of forcing England, to take a step so degrading 7 Can they possibly expect that she will ever yield to such a demand f Let us reverse the case, and suppose that Eng- land were to make a similar demand on us — is there a man in the whole United States, who would not feel it to be his solemn duty to submit to the loss of every earthly possession — even of life itself — to avert if possible, aach deep dishonour of his country T Who indeed cculd expect to live in peace and security, if his country should once make a concession so dis- graceful 1 Nations, in matters of public concern, as well as individuals in private matters, well know that concessions of this kind will not purchase peace but for a brief season — and will therefore resist such demands, cost what it may. In our next number we shall present our views of the alleged discovery of the Columbia river by Captain Gray in 1792. It was our intention before taken up the head of the subject to consider the question, whether, supposing the provision of the Nootka convention concerning settlements to have been abrogated by the war of 1796, it was renewed by the treaty of Madrid in 1814. But we have already dwelt so long on this convention, that we feel an impatience, in which we are appre- hensive our readers will participate, to pass on to another topic of argument, reserving what we have to say on this point for some future occasion, and contenting ourselves in the meanwhile with this single remark, viz. that we make no question whatever that the provision in relation to settlements was ■0 renewed— that this convention is a commercial treaty within the mean- ing of the treaty of Madrid ; because it contains stipulations of a character decidedly commercial especially as regards the settlements; and that if the point is subject to any doubt, that doubt must be confined in these clauses in the treaty which do not partake of that character, plaio good lenae of the matter. Thii we think it the ^1 NO. T.-GBAY>8 DISCOVERY. Gray's Alleged Discovery or thi Columbia Uiver. — To afflrm that Spain at the date of the Nootka Conventioa hud an exclusive right to the whole country now in dispute by the right ofdiscovery, and that the Suited States acquired an exclusive title to a portion of the same country by Gray's discovery of the Columbia Riverin 1792, is apalpablo contradiction, which no ingenuity can reconcile. The Hrst proposition involves the fuisity of the sec- ond — the second involves the faloity of the tfrst — and it is a mere Bublely to contend that this is either no contradiction, or that such contradiction is im* material, because the title of Spain, such as it was, is now vested in the Unit ed States. The case has been indirectly compared to that of a pluintiiT in ejectment, who claims 1st under his own mere naked possessiim prior to the possession of the defendant, and 2nd, under a documentary title, which at tile commencement of the plaintiff's possession was in a third person, by whom such title was subsequently transferred to the plaintiff before the commencement of his suit. This, at least, appears to be onn of the views taken of the subject by the learned Secretary alluded to, who has however expressed himself so obscurely, that we are not sure that we thoroughly nnderstand him. He has blended with this view, another and distinct view, which we shall presently notice, and this circumstance somewhat perplexes us. But taking it for granted that he does mean this, or that this is a par> of his meaning let us see whether the analogy holds good; and fur the pur- pose of ascertaining this, let us ask the simple question, where is the incon- sistency — where is the contradiction — between the two titles thus set up in the case supposed 7 Does the assertion that the plaintiff had possession of the premises in dispute, at some given time, before the defendants' poseiess- ion began, contradict the assertion that, at the same time, the true title was in a third person ? Most undoubtedly not at ell. It needs no lawyer to see this; and would this fact have presented any obstacle to the plaintiff's re- covery, even if he had not subsequently acquired the true title ? None whatever. So long as the defendant shows no title in himself— so long as he shows nothing but naked possession, he has no case. Ha cannot com- plain if the possession is taken from him to be given to ihe plaintiff; for the plaintiff's possession was prior to his, and when neither party has any doc- umentary title, it is clearly just that the prior possession should prevail. Where then is the analogy between these two casea 7 There is none ; and This we tbtok it tbe ER.— To affirm that ilusive right to the and tliat the Suited le country by Gray'i itradictioii, which no the fuisity of the sec- iia mere sublely to contradiction is itn- w vested in the Unit that of a pluintiif in ssession prior to the tary tir!e, wliich at I a third person, by plaintiff before tbe be onw of the views ), wlio has liowever that we thoroughly ir and distinct view, uinewhat perplexes or that this is a par- )d ; and fur the pur- where is the incon* lilies thus set up ia if had possession of iefendaiits' pos^eiis* I, the true title vias ds no lawyer to see } the plaintiff's re- rue title 7 None tiitnself — BO long as Ho cannot com* le plaintiff; for ihe party has any doc- on should prevail, here is none ; and 23 the Secretary's illuitrai ion manilestly fails him. Should it be answered thai notwithstanding the failure of this particular illustration, it is yet undeniable that there are cases in which parties to suits at law, whether plaintifl* or defendants,may set up conflicting claims — claims so exposed that the validity of either necesiarily impliesthe invalidity of the other — we admit that there are such cases ; but we reply, by asking. What if one of the claims is of soch a nature that, whether it be good or bad, it necessarily destroys the other, and especially if each is of that kind 7 How then 7 Does not the party set- ting up such claims, effectually overthrow his own case'i Anu yet this is precisely so in the case now under consideration ; for if Spain had an exclu • sive title at the time of Gray's discovery, that discovery availed nothing — and if Spain had no exclusive title — if she bad lost that title by her neglect of the country, — when the country was open to all the world — tne title was in all tbe world — and in this case also, the discovery was of no avail. And in the same way, the very fact of our urging Gray's discovery at all, even though it shall bo found to have given us no title, destroys the claim under the Spanish title, fur it sets up a principle which overthrows that title. It involves a denial and a disproof of that title. If Spain hail become acquaint- ed with that coast at or about the time of Gray's discovery, and that discov* ery hadbcen made within the last 2 or 3 years ; if the whole coast bad, un- til at or near that period remained unknown to mankind, and the question in the case had merely been, whether Gray was the original discoverer, or whether the Spanish navigators were not entitled to claim that honor, then these conflicting claims mi^'ht have been set up together, for then upon the failure of one, the other would have been good ; for that one of the tvio should bo good, would then have been a matter of necessity, supposing all needful things to have been done in each case tn secure to the respective parties tho results of their itevcral discoveries. The present case would then have been analogous to iho case of the plaintiff in the ejectment above put. And wherein lies tho difference between tho present case and the case last supposed 7 Simply in this, that the discoveries of Spain are all stale discov- eries, and so fur as they show any thing, they only show that she once had a little which is now extinct, or rather, which is in all the world. They merely serve to destroy the value of Gray's discovery to the United States, while they aretliLtnselves unavailable — the claim founded on these discov- eries, though in itself good for nothing, is yet all powerful to upset the other claim, and does, in fact, utterly destroy it, while it is, in turn, itself destroy- ed by the other; for insisting on Gray's discoveries, we in effect contend for and establish the staleness and unayailableness of the discoveries of Spain : and this is the case whether we succeed or not in establishing the claim un- :24 i'. W ■ V ' ) ^ I ■ ■ ■i. dar Gray's discovery. To contead for the Gray claim at all, is to admit and put beyond all controversy the principle of the Nootka Convention, viz. that as far bitck as 1790, at least, the country in dispute was open for settlement to all the world-^open to the first occupant. In all ordinary cases of oonflicting claims set up by the same party — as least, in all we ever read or heard of, as far as we can remember, and at far as wo can now imagine, either claim is a gainer by what the other loses. Whatsoever makes against the one, is in favour of other. But in this case it is not so — for here each claim destroys the other, without thereby estab- lishing, or even strengthening itself. The case is in this respect very pecu- liar. However strange the learned Secretary may think it, (and he seems much surprised that it should be so,) the title of the United States is cer- tainly worsO'in consequence of the attempt to unite the claims, than if we hud relied upon either alone. The attempt has placed both claims entirely hors du combat. By aslerting both, both have been denied and shown to be false. It is a case not unlike the case of the Kilkenny cats. The two claims have fairly eaten each other up. The cats indeed left each other's tails, but here nothing is left at all. The case is even worse than this, in fact, for the claim under Gray's discovery, by admitting that the country was open for settlement in 1790, admits that it was no longer within the field of discovery, or at least of orisiual discovery — of discovery, such as could be made the foundation of territorial claims. The claim reduces it- self to the rank of a secondary discovery. It then destroys itself, for it in- volves a self contradiction — it eats itselt up. It is an absurdity, in other words, upon its very face — it asserts a palpable impossibility, viz. that the country was open fur settlement by all the world, and was yet nevertheless open for the acquisition of territory by mere discoveries alone. To say that by discovering the outlet of a river in a country previously known to all the world and open to all the world, you have acquired a title to the coun- try or any part of it, is a positive solecism. The falsity of the proposition is a mathematical certainty. It is clear as light. The principle of the Noot. ka convention, in short, which the claim sets up, is as fatal to this claim it- self, as it is to the Spanish title. • . - , It is a matter of no small surprise, we think, that our Secretary of State, who is now in the Senate, and for whose soundness of judgment and clear sightednesB in all our public affairs, as well as bis sincerity and uprightness, we entertain, in common with the public at large, the highest respect should have fallen among ethers into the error of setting up these contradictory claims, especially as his course in the Senate, as well now as formerly, ap- parently indicates, that his views of this subject correspond mainly, or, at t* n at all, is to admit and ca Convention, viz. that •as open for settlement Y the same party— as »n remember, and at r what the other loses, her. But in this case ithout thereby estab- his respect very pecu- link it, (and he seems United States is cer- the claims, than if we 1 both claims entirely lenied and shown to >nny cate. The two Jed left each other's worse than this, in og that the country > longer within iho f discovery, such as 'he claim reduces it- troys itself, for it in- 1 absurdity, in other bility, viz. that the was yet nevertheless alone. To say that iisly known to all a title to the coun- of tlio proposition •incipleof theNoot. tal to this claim it- Secretary of State, udgment and clear ly and uprightness, best respect should bese contradictory w as formerly, ap- ond mainly, or, at least, in some important particulars, with our own. But we explain the inconsistency, (for such we think it,) between his diplomatic letters and the diplomatic and legislative inactivity which he has all along recommend- ed, by reflecting that in writing these letters he probably considered him- self to be acting as an advocate, who was bound to reason his client's case according to the client's views, rather than his own. He was obliged to exhibit the subject as it was regarded by other public men, and not as he regarded it himself. We think, indeed, that bis letters bear upon the face of them full proof, that this was at least partially the case, and we believe it to have been so altogether. We are therefore bound to say, that we do not consider him re|ponsible for any false views of the subject, or any false reasoning or feebleness of argument or incon- sistency which his letter exhibit. The same thing may possibly be true also with respect to the present Secretary ; but we have no proof of it in his letters, nor has he ever said or done anything in bis Senatorial capacity, as far as we can remember, to induce such a belief, and we tbereiore take it for granted, that he, at any rate, is altogether in earnest, and expresses his real opinions. The truth is, there is no way of turning Gray's discovery to any account but by insisting that he was the original discoverer of the N. W. Coast ; that all the previous discoveries in that quarter, as well by the Spanish as by the English navigators, amounted to just nothing at all ! r.ty .^ It is perfectly idle then to talk of this discovery, and especially to talk at the same time of the exclusive title of Spain. All the world see the ab- surdity of it, except our own country, and all the world is laughing at it, and if we persist in such nousense, we shall be looked upon by the rest of mankind as a nation of incorrigible simpletons. Another view which the learned Secretary appears to take of the subject and has, in fact, blended as before observed with the view alretidy discuss- ed, is, that the United States are to be regarded as having, at least, acquired by Gray's discovery a possession of the country in dispute, or some part of it; and that by subsequently acquiring the title of Spain, we have conOrm- ed that possession and rendered it indefeasible. He dues not indeed ex- pressly say this, yet we think hei meant it, though he has not stated his meaning as clearly as the case required. But, surely, this cannot be so.— The mere finding the mouth of the Columbia River and the entrance of its mouth by Gray, could not, under any circumstances, confer upon the Uni- ted States even a mere nominal possession, unless Gray did, in fact, nomi- nally take possession, in behalf of the United States, of which we have, as yet, seen no suggestion, and a mere nominal possession is no possession at 26 1*1 ?■■ 1 all for the parposee of the present dispute. Perhaps, hnwever, the Secre* tary meant to refer to the settlement at Astoria, as constituting a possession of the conntry by the United States. This we shall sho.v in its proper place, vested no possession in the United States, either nominal or real ; for the very satisfactory reason that it was not made with any such view, at well as for other reasons, which we shall hereafter notice. The foregoing remarks, we trust, have at least shown that the United States cannot at the same time insist on Gray's discovery and on the Spanish title— that if they have not precluded themselves from insisting on either, they mast at any rate make their election between the two. If they insist on Gray's discovery, they mustabandon the Spanish title ; and if they in* ■ist on the latter, they must give up the former. This election, we contend, they had already made, before they set up the Spanish title. They had pre - eluded themselves from insisting on that title, before they acquired it, by setting up a claim upon the strength of Gray's discovery and under the set- tlement of Astoria, either or both of them. To claim the country or any part of it on either or both these grounds was, in fact, to set up, as already observed, the principle of the Nootka convention — it was to admit, and the United States did thereby admit, that Spain had no exclusive claim to the country — that it was open to all the world — to the first occupant. The con- vention of 1813 is a solemn record of that admission- -a deliberate sanction of that principle ; and the United States cannot deny it to have been so, without shocking the common eense of mankind. It was indeed, we are in- clined to think, nothing more nor less than the Nootka convention over again but in a fewer words, and with no other substantial difference than the sub- stitution of the United States as one of the parlies in the place of S|)ain and the additional icature of a limited duration, amounting in eflect to nothing To the principle of the Nootka convention, then, the United States are irre- vocably committed; and when they insist, ns they constantly do, ou Gray's discovery and the settlement at Astoria, they, in fact, do nothing but contin- ually urge that principle; and yet by insisting on the Spanish title, they are calling upon England to give upthut very principle. Ci.nany thing be moro unreasonable — more thoroughly absurd ? We are hero temptod to noiico certain remarks of tlio Secretary already 80 often referred to, on the subject of iha convention of 1818. Tiio first is that the American negotiators, who took part in the framing of that conven- tion, ' did not assert that iho United States had a perfect title to that country ; but that tlieir claim was, at least, good as against Great; IJrituin.' Upon this we remark, it is now no matter what our negotiators asserted or did not ns- 27 ■ort, in the courso of iha negotiation. The convention must speak for itself; and on tho face of tho instrument it is apparent that the United States claim- ed an interest in tha country of soma sort; and thay cojld not claim any in* tarest at all in it, withiut impliedly denying tha exclusive title of Spain, or, in other words, sstting up the principle of ihe Nootka convention. As to ^he distinction implied in the above quotation, viz , that the title of the Uni- ted St Jtes under Gray'a discovery might b3 good as against Great Britain and not as against Spain, we have elsewhere shown that to be frivolous.— There is no such thing as a good title by discovery a3 against a particular na- tion, and not as against another. IF a discovery is original and gives title at all, it gives a title againU all the world, and if it is not original, it gives no title wlmtevev. Another remark of the Secretary is, that the convention of 1813 contains a reservation of tho claims of any third power to that country. 'This,' he says, ' could hive bjeu intaadodfor the claim of Spain alone.' Here he is again taking far granted the exclusive title of Spain. This idea meets us at every turn, and thus we (lad hiui constantly begging the question. Canuot he reason batter than this? In what school has he learned his dialectics 7 and where has he received his forensic education ? This reservation, with- out d lubt, refers geuorally to the rights of all other nations, and not specifi- cally totlia claimiof Si)iin. The facts of tho case not only warrant, but require tnls c juuructiou ; for the parties were dfjaling with that which be- longed to all the world. The reservation was, however, totally needless; for tho coavention contained nothing that could impair tha rights of other States; neither did tha Nootlta coavention. It was not amiss, however, to insert tha rosarva'ion, merely to show the v7orld that the parties had no idea of oxeluJing othar nations Irom their just rights — that they made no e.xcla- sive claiin— and it saems mjst clearly to identify tha principle of this conven- tion with that of tho Nootlia convention. Having now shown, as we think, satisfactorily, that tfic claim under Gray's discovery, and tha clai.n under Spain, mutually destroy each other; or, at all events, that one only of these claims can bo urged at the same time, wo will next proceed to sliow that even if Gray had been the first man to visit the North West Coast, his discovery would have conferred no rights upon the United States ; a task which is soon accomplished ; for Gray was a mere private navigator. He bore no national commission. This distinction our negotiators have treated as a novelty, having no foundation in the law of na- ions. Pray, when did they last read Vattel ? Or did they never read him t That Vattel makes ihe distinction, we have already shown in our first nom- bor; and we need not here repeat what was there said on the subject. Bnt ift even if Gray had beeu an ofRcer of the United States, he so dealt with his discovery, that bis government could not have roade it the ground of a terri- torial claim. Wu have no proof, not even a suggestion, as already stated, that he ever took a nominal possession of the country about the mouth of the Columbia river, or made any claim to it in any way ; and it does appear that ha did not report his discovery to the United States government. He report- ed it to foreigners, by whom it was published to the world, and not by him- self. His own government knew nothing of it until the publication of Van- couver's juuriml ; and at what precise time they learned it from that source has not, we believe, been publicly stated. And when they did learn it, what did they do 7 Did they send and tuko possession, even nomiually 7 or did they in any way claim the country and publish the claim? They did neither. At least, they never made the claim known, until they began to negotiate on the subject with England, which, if we remember rightly, was first at Ghent, in 1814, more than twenty years after the discovery, which was fur too late; anJ besides, there was no publication to the world at large; end as for possession, the settlement of Astoria was no act of the United States, but was also the act of a private adventurer, who set up, we believe, no territorial claim, or claim to the soil or sovereignty even in his own be- half, and much Ichs did he do it in behalf of his government ; and this set- tlement was not made, be it observed, until nearly twenty years after the discovery, (again too late) and was moreover soon abandoned. The discovery of Gray, then, of which so much has been said, amounts to nothing alter all, in any view of the case. It was not so dealt with, that it could have been made the foundation of a territorial claim on behalf of the United States, if it had been unquestionably an original discovery, which it was not, for the discovery was made by Huceta, and merely confirmed by Gray; and the field of original discovery in that quarter, as we have already shown, had been long closed before it was entered even by lleceta. The results of this disco^ry belong to the world at largo. Gray abandoned them to the world. He made them the common property of mankind whatever they were ; though he does not appear to have had un idea that any one would ever think of this discovery as a foundation of title to the country which he visited. And as he did not himself so regard it, it cannot be so regarded by others. All this, we consider, is clear enough upon the principles stated in our first number; but a simple illustration will make it still clearer. Upon these principles, the resulu of the discovery of Gray, had it been an original discovery, belonging to himseli in case he had chosen to appropriate them. And suppose he had done so. Suppose he hud taken possessiun in bis own name, and had then gone to Franco— assigned bis ■'**f dealt with hi« round of a terri- already stated, le mouth of the oes appear that ent. Hereport- ud not by him- lication of Van- om that source Y did leara it, nominally? or m? Thoy did I they began to )er rightly, was scovery, which ) world at large ; t of the United up, we believe, I in his own be- t; and this set- years after the ;d. laid, amounts to ;alt with, that it on behalf of the jovery, which it ly conflrmed by «e have already lleceta. The rray abandoned ty of mankind lad an idea that 1 of title to the ard it, it cannot lough upon the on will make it overy of Gray, 9 he had chosen le he had taken 9— assigned bis m claim to her, and carried out and planted a French colony at the month of ha Col umbia River — would the United States have had a right to dispoi* sess that colony, because Gray was a citizen of this country f We opine not ; and this tests our principle. It shows the principal to be correct. It shows that Gray could have done what he pleased with his discovery; and as he did nothing, the results of it belong no more to his own country than they do ta the rest of the world. There may indeed be instances, in which nations have setup claims in similar cases— and other nations may have acquiesced iu them — but this proves nothing. There is no more reason why a man's country should claim the results of his geographical discoveries, when he has not claimed them himself, than why it should claim the results of bis dia* ooveries iu science or in the arts, when he has himself om itted to claim these. Away then with this shallow pretence that the United States acquired a title to the Oregon territory or any part of it, by Gray's discovery. Let as hear no more of it. We care not what great names may be associated with it — it is mere dreaming and driveling — it is altogether puerile to talk of such a claim. As a mere dry, legal question, and such it undoubtedly is, there is not a shadow of duubt ou the subject. Nothing can exceed the folly of setting it up, except the folly after it was set of bringing forward the Span* ish title to destroy it ; unless indeed an apology may be found for that actia the utter worthlessness of the claim. One of the positions taken by the late Secretary we feel bound to notice ; not because we think it can be material, after clearly refuting, as we believe we have done, the claim under Gray's discovery, but lest by omitting to contradict, we may be supposed to have assented to the doctrine conveyed thereby. It is the position that the discovery of the mouth of the Columbia Biver, in connection with the post at Astoria, and the othersettlements made by Astor, and the explorations of Lewis and Clark, entitles the United State to claim the whole valley drained by that River. The doctrine is, that a - nation by merely discovering the mouth of a river — partially exploring the region through which it flows, and making two or three insignificant settle^ ments on its branches, which settlements it abandoned in three or four years, acquires a title to that whole region, no matter ho w extensive. This doctrine we protest against as most extravagant. It is wholly unwarranted Ity anything to be found in the works of standard writers on public law ; and we roundly deny that the practice of nations, as the present Secretary has intimated, has established any such rule. It is admitted in the very state- ment of the rule, that exploring is, in such caso, an essential requisite to give a title. But exploration cannot make a title, either separately or in conneo- ' yund those limits. In truth, it is tu be regarded, wo think, so far at least as respects the Spanish title, in the light of an attempt to carry into effect the bull of Pope Alexander 6th, by which he gave to Spain the whole of the new world on the ground of its discovery by Colambus. Spain, it is gene- rally supposed, relied more upon the decree for her thle to the N. W. Coast, han upon her discoveries in that quarter. She regarded the country as her own, by virtue of that decree, long before her navigators had visited it at all; and it is certainly somewhat curious that our own Protestant Republi- can Government should be the first in the world to undertake seriously tbe task of enforcing the arrogant and ridiculous pertensions of the 15th cen- tury ; for we have acquired and have endeavoured to enforce the right on Spain to that country, when she, in truth, bad no right but the right which that decree gave her, and even that right, or rather pretence of right, she herself had relinquished by the Nootka Convention. Verily, we think our statesmen might have found better employment than that of bnoting up and acquiring this stale claim — this wretched relic of departed Papal power.— What was given for it, we do not remember, or whether any thing — we believe, however, nothing at all, or nothing of much vulue ; and if ao, then the very facility of its acquisition shows that Spain attaches no value to it whatever. Doubtless she must have laughed at our eagerness to ac- quire such obsolete, antiquated trash; for her journalists are now joining in the general outcry of the whole European press against the palpable injus- tice, unreasonableness, absurdity, and folly of our exclusive pretensions — in the universal hiss— or we might rather say the angry sbout of scorn and de- rision — witii which those pretensions have been received by the rest of man- kind, and which may yet perhaps prove, if these pretensions are obstinately persisted in, to the extent of breaking the peace of the world by this miser* able brawl, the omiuus precursor of a g'-and crusade against our own country. While in the act of penning the preceding sentence, we received a paper containing Mr. Gallatin's first letter; and we are happy to see that his views of the Spanish title agree so well with our own ; but we are apprehensive that he will not agree with us altogether. We think he intends to take a view of Cray's discovery entirely dilTerent from the above, as well as of other points we have yet to discuss. We shall proceed however to express our own opinions in our own way, but with the utmost respect for. his, and with the most profound regret at finding that distinguished statesman and I' f ■'* ,> ' 1 , '*■ M. most excellent and venerable man to be against us if it shall ao tarn odt. We shall next consider the effect of the settlement at Astoria and its inci' dents. As to Lewis and Clark's explorations, they are not worthy of the least regard, after what we have said of Gray's discovery. They manifestly stand upon no better footing, if as good. To discuss them would be a mere repetition ot'the arguments just stated. Wo shall only remark upon them, that the present Secretary in commenting qp the expedition of Lewis and Clark, takes particular cure to state that they were furnished with a com- mission from their government *, and why advert to this fact, if it was unim- portant— if the distinction impliedly taken by Vattel, between private and public adventurers is a mere novelty in public law ? In doing this, he has himself implicitly admitted this distinction, although he elsewhere treats it with scorn. NO. TI.-TJaB 8BTTi:.BinENT AT A8TOKIA. Ths Settlkmknt at AsToniA asd its Incidents. — The United States, we hold most clearly, acquired no title by the settlement of Mr. Astor at the mouth of the Columbia River, and the posts connected therewith on the upper parts of that river ; because that settlement was not a national enter- prise, and because it was sooa abandoned, and has never been resumed.. As for the first branch of this remark ; Mr. Astor and his associates were mere private adventurers : so, at least, it would appear from all that has yet been said on the subject of this settlement. It has not been suggested, so far as we have seen, tlut they carried oat with them any authority from the government of the United States, to plant a colony in that country. Such authority they could not have, without an act of Congress. The President alone, unlike the executive of any European government, has no power to confer such authority ; and if any act of Congress had ever been passed, giv- ing such authority to Mr. Astor or to any one else, doubtless the fact would have been referred to long before this in the course of the present dispute. And so if such authority had ever been conferred upon that gentleman by an official act of the President ; which, however unavailing it might have been for all mere municipal purposes, would perhaps have been good as against other nations, unless Congress had expressly refused to ratify it. We take it for granted then, that Mr. Astor had no public authority to form settlements in that country. We doubt indeed, whether the government of the United States was ever made acquainted with bis intentions to form snch settlements until after they had been formed ; and we doubt moreover, whether the government ever knew that such settlements had been formed t 83 ill ao taro oat. storia and its inci' not worthy of the Tbey manifestly would be a mero iuiark upou them, ion of Lewis and shed with a com- et, if it was unim- iwoen private and doing this, he has ilsewhere treats it rOKIA. he United States, f Mr. Alter at the therewith on the a national enter- een resumed., a associates were m all that has yet Ben suggested, so uthority from the ; country. Such The President has no power to >een passed, giv- is the fact would present dispute. t gentleman by S it might ha^e ave been good ised to ratify it. uthority to form ) government of motions to form loubt moreover, td been formed until shortly before, or perhaps until after they had been relinquished. We take it for granted further, vuat Mr. Astor did not claim to act at all in that matter by any such authority, or for the benefit of his government — that he did not go to that country with any view of there establishing the sovereign- ty of bis government — that his objects were not, in the least, of a public na- ture — that they were purely private. We submit then that his proceedings did not — that they could not establish the sovereignty of this country over those settlements; and that whatever may have been his own views and in- tentions, the mere want of any previous public authority or subsequent pub- lic rtitificatiou of his acts precludes the idea that he did so establish it. ^^ We will first suppose, what was probably tbo fact, that he had no such in- tention — that his intentions were to foro) settlements for those particular com- mercial purposes which he then had immediately in view, without caring for the matter of sovereignty in any way — without meaning to claim it, either for himself or his associates, or for h\n government — or perhaps re- serving to himself and his associates the ultimata right to dispose of the so- vereignty, whenever they should find the exercise of sovereign power ne- cessary to their purposes, as they might then see best — of assuming it them- selves, offering it to their own government, or to ny other. Had he not a moral right to place himself in such a situation 1 Can any good reason be given against such a right 7 Is there any principal of the law of nations or of international policy that forbids a mau to claim itT Is it forbidden by any rule or principle of our own municipallaw? We know of no such principle in either code, and can iinigioe none. It is a part of the natural liberty of every man — the liberty which his Maker has given him, to act as he may see best under any given circumstances, so long as he does not violate, and does nothing that tends to violate any of the commands of his Maker, ex- press or implied ; the laws of his country or the laws of nations — nothing that injures, or tends to injure his fellow men. And does the exercise of the right in question involve any such violation, or tendency to violate, any such injury or tendency to injure 7 We can perceivu none — we assume that there is none ; we also assuoae tho existence of the right. Is it not clear then that no sovereignty was established by the formation of the set- tlements in question 7 And what then becomes of the claim of the United States to the sovereignty of these settlements while they remained in the bands of Mr. Astor 7 It has no existence, nor ever had, but in the imagi- nation of our public men. The principle that a pr vate adventurer, by settling in an uninhabited country, sets up in that country, the sovereignty of his own government, is entirely too loose and indefinite, and moreover destitute of all reason, to be %. i^ .ip^ 34 B principle of law. Courts of law have never, wo boliovo, sanctioned sucb aprinciplo, and wo have no idea that thoy ever would. Thoso who aasert such a priiiciple. are bouud to give a reason fjr it. Thoy have no right to take it for granted, as it has been taken fur granted in this case, by onr pres- ent Secretary at least, if not by other men in office. But no reason can be given for it, and that is decisive against iho principle— that shows it not to bo law. There is no need of any such rule, and therefore there is no suc'l rule. If Mr. A9torhad been interrupted in this proceeding by any foreign go- verninjnt at peace with our own, and had applied to our government for protection, doubtless the government would have hid n ri^'lit to iillbrd him that protection ; but this would have been upon the principle that every go- vernraont has a right to protect its citizens or f u')J3cts. wherever ihey may be, the world over, from wrongs offered to them by other i'ovi.'rnmeuts ; and not upon th3 principle that the sovereignty of the country extended to bis nettlements; nor would such an application and compliiinco therewith, have necessarily wrought such an extension. It would not have been nocssari- ly an act of submisiioa lo the sovereignty of our [rovfrnment, such as to make his settlemsnts an integral part of our country. Nothing but the ex- press concurrence of both the government and Mr. Astor, or some clear im- plication of a mutual intention of that itind, could have wrought that effect. Whether the government would havo been bound to grant such protection, would hjve dapsoded perhaps on the circumstances of the case, viz, wheth- er the supposed wrong was offered to his person, or personal property, or to his fixed possessions. And whether the government would not in any case havo had a right to require as a condition of their interference, that he should expressly acknowledge their sovereignly over his settlements, is a question which wo shall nut particularly enquire into, us it has nothing to do wtfi our subject, so far as we can, at present, see; though we ratlier think they would ; at least, in tho case of a wrong offered, and protection applied for, to such (ited poisassious— to his right of soil— '.f not in the othe case. Having shown afBrmitively the existence of such a right, we will now, ia a few words, show it negatively, viz : by supposing its non-existence, and pointing out the result to which that supposition will lead. And hero wo observe first, that if a man cannot thus go and establish himself in an unin- habited country, without carrying along with him the sovereignty of hia government, he must remain subject to the jurisdiction of that government and under his allegiance to his country in his new abode, even ulihough that goverameat may be unable, either from waut of power, or from the re- evea uli hough that , ur from the re- mutencte, or iuacccstibility oi bia situation, to afford him the protection which he has an unconditioual and unquestionable right, in that case, to claim. Of course, he cannot erect a government of his own, whatever may be his means of supporiiug it ; and he must live without any government, without any laws, or organized moans of defence, however necessary he may ultimately find them, and however willing bis associates, for such he must of course have, may be to unite with him ia such arrangements. This, we submit, is absurd. Again, if one man with a few associates cannot do tliis, it is obvious that any number of men cannot do it-^a thoasand, or a hundred thousand, or a million ; and that if half the population of the United States or evon more, should now go in a body to tho Oregon territory, they could not establish * their own government and make their own laws, in that country, but must be subject to the sovereignty of the United States. This is another and greater absurdity Theee instances, we think, are enough — but we will add anoiher. If an equal number of privats adventurers oi two different nations should establish u colony in such a country, thay would carry along with them, upon the priuciple we contend against, tho sovereignties of their respective governments, and there would then be two separate and distinct Bovereigtities — and there might as well be a dozen or any indefinite number — existing at tho samo time, in the same tertitory, and upon the very same spot; and thia would bo tho climax of absurdity. We might illustrate the bubject still further, but we forbear. It is clear thon, that if Mr. Astor went to that country without any specific intcutions as to tho future sovereignty of his settlements, he did not carry with him the sovcrcigrily of his country, at least, for any territorial purpose and if ho went with tho intention of ultimately establishing for himseli and kis associates a separate government, tho case is still clearer, or, at any rate, equally clear. But suppose he had the intention of establishing a colony in behalf of the United States ; that intention availed nothing, so long as it was not made known to his government and sanctioned to that government — so long as ho wa3 not clothed with any public authority. But wo are tuUl that tho soUlemont at Astoria having passed into the hands of iho British Government during the late war, was surrendered to tho government of the Uiiitod States in 1313, whereby, aa wo are in sub stance further told, tho sovereignty of tho United States was estsbllibed ove tho settlement and drew to it the sovereignty of the whole Oregon territo ry ; or, at least, of tlio whole valley of tho Columbia river ; and an attempt has been mado to ciifurco this view of the subject, by referring to a remark which, Mr. Hush soys, Lord Casllercagh, about that time, mado to him, viz * 36 that the United Statei were to be coniidered the party in poMeaiion, pend ing the negotiations about the title. Onthia, we observe first, that the effect imputed to tbia transaction ia grossly exaggerated-that this view of it assigns to the doctrine of con- Btractive possession and constructive sovereignty, a most extravagant lati- tude, such as no court of law could sanction: and secondly, that Lord Cas- tlere'agh's remark manifestly referred to the settlement at Astoria, and per. haps the poBta on the upper part of the river, if they were still in existence, —if they had also been captured and were comprehended in the arrange- ment for restoration— not to the whole Oregon territory, or even the whole •Valley of the Columbia. Nothing but a clear, explicit declaration of such an intention, and that under his own hand, could warrant such a construotion of that remark ; and even such a declaration would not have been binding on his government; for he, as a mere minister of State, had no power to make such an arrangement. No nation could ho justly held to such ar- rangement by any thipg less than a solemn treaty. A public man cannot thus give away the rights of his country. Thirdly, wo insist, that the sovereignty thus acquired by the United States whatever was its extent, was long ago ubandoned by relinquishing the set- tlements in question. The country, we contend thus foil back into its for- mer unappropriated condition ; and has ever since remained in that condi- tion, with the exception of such parts oi it as were then, or have been since occupied, by the late North West, and now Hudson's Bay Company, and such other parts as have recently been settled by emigrants from the United States— and these emigrants, be it observed, have no m>>re carried with them ihe sovereignty of their country, than did Mr. Astor and his associates. They havo, in fact, established a separate and independent government, as they had a full right to do. The result then is, that the establishment of the post at Astoria and the in- cidents growing out of that transaction, havo not given to the United States any title whatever, either to the boil or to the sovereignty of any part of the Oregon territory. We proceed then to consider the claim of the United States under the Loui- riana treaty. This claim demands but a brief notice. It appears to rest on nothing better than the vague and inadmissible notion of contiguity or corUi' nutty, as our public men have been pleased to express it; and the fact that France impliedly set up a claim to the country West of the Rocky Mountains, by comprehending it within the limits o£ Louisiana as laid down on some of her maps. These grounds of title are both so exceedingly feeble— so insigni- ficant — that they are hardly worth discussing. 37 pouetiion, pend An to the firiit, thn phrnitefl " conUguity" and "continuity " as hero applied, sound strangely enough to legal oars. They are most unsatisfactory phrasesi and must, we think, strike with a feeling of disappointment, at their utter, want of significance, all minds accustomed to the precision of thought and Ian guage so indispensable in forensic discussions. We are quite sure that no lawyer had anything to do with the contrivance of expressions so clu itsy and unmeaning, as < the right of continuity,' or ' the right of contiguity.' Phrases so indefinite, for ought we know, may very well answer the purposes of diplo- matists in discussing the general afftiirs of nations ; but when applied to a dry legal question of title, as the present is, they really provoke a smile.^ * The right of continuity' or 'contiguity' indeed I Whoever beard of auch a thing until the present case 1 And what docs it mean 1 If it means any- thing at all, it moans that a nation has a right to claim as her own, any unin- habited country, which lies contiguous to her own boundary lines— all such country as she can comprehend by an imaginary continuation of those lines to any indefiaite extent, whether she really wants it or not— whether she can use it or no ; and no matter bow much it may be wanted, or to what extent it can be used by other nations— that she has a right, upon no better plea than the simple fact of mere juxta-position, to prevent the rest of mankind from obeying the primitive command of their Maker < to multiply and replenish the earth.' The proposition refutes itself. And what authorities are referred to in support of this new-fangled absurdity T Is any reference maue to writers on the law of nations, or the moral principles on which that law is founded, and which alonegivesjto it its binding elTect ? Not at all. Oneofthese prin. ciples, and that which has the highest sanction among them all -the com. mands of the Almighty— we have just cited, and that principle irrevocably condemns the presumptuous arrogance of the rule. It is no matter what claims have been set up in ancient Anglo-American charters, or from time to time put forth, in the same or other shapes, by France or Spain, in reference to the country beyond the Mississippi — along its line, or about its source, or elsewhere — in so far as they were meant to affect the rights of other nations, we have no hesitation in denouncing them, one and all, as insolent, and all but blasphemous denials of the high perogative of God— a perverse and wicked opposition, or attempt at opposition, to the course of His providence in filling up the world, by the natural expinsion of the human family, and thus doing what he will with bis own. We shail not trouble ourselves to inquire by whom and when such claims have been set up, or when and by whom thej have been admitted or acquiesced in. No admission — no acquiescence of the kind can bind the world at large to such a rule — can constitute a precedent for the settlement of territorial disputes among nations in cases of this sort* 38 Such claims, we hold, had no binding effect as precedents, even upoti the per. tics who set them up, not even in their own day— no longer, at least, than while they were persisted in. Most assuredly they are not binding upon thei^ Buccessors. One generation cannot in this way bind another. If all the false principles, which the different nations of the earth have frcni time to time set up, and acted on or acquiesced in, are to be considered as binding upon the respective nations, by whom they have been severally urged, tacitly admitted or not denied, the present law of nations will soon become an obsolete code The grave question we are new discussing, is not to be settled by such prcce. dents — it is not to be, even in the slightest degree, affected by considerations so- frivclous. The parties may see fit perhaps to regard proximity of situation as worth attending to on the score of mutual convenience in the adjustment of boundary lines. But there is no other point of view in which the doctrine con- veyed by the novel phraseology above quoted — the bungling invention of our own diplomatists, possesses the least importance, or has indeed any real mean- ing. After the foregoing remarks, we think it superfluous to say anything on the subject of the French maps of Louisiana, except to observe that of all the lEoonthine arguments which have been urged in this case c;i Ithalfof the United States, it is the silliest and the weakest. We have now examined all (he arguments which have ever been brcught forward by our pvblic men in support of the exclusive claim of the United States to the Cregcn territory. The result is, that there exists no rational foundation forany such claim, either to the whole or any part of that country ; and we do not coincide in the opinion so generally expressed ujrn the ap- pearance of the ccrrespondencc lately published, viz. that the qucsticn on our side is, at any rate, ably argued in that correspondence. Cn the contraiy, we can hardly remember that we ever had occasion to pcru>e an argument upon any forensic questien, so ill-constructed, immethcdical and inconsistent —60 illogical, so thoroughly feeble and inccnclusivr, as we have found the argument on V.half of the United States in that correspondence to be. Nor can we say that it has been as well argued as we think it might have been, on the other side ; but how far the British Plenipotentiary may have been restrained by his instructionK, and what may be the motive of such instruc- tions, from bringing out the full strength of his case, by going into the ques- tion at large, we of course cannot determine. That he has not done so however is, we ihink, perfectly apparent. But be it as it may wiih regaid to that side cf ihe question, not a single aigument hasixen urged on our side, which has any thing to sujiain it better than ome rague generality obviously taken for granted, or some loose and evi« 39 1 upoii the per. , at least, than ling upon theiy I fall the false time to time set nding upon the tacitly admitted I obsolete code I by such prece. isiderations so- ' of situation as '■ adjustment of le doctrine con- nvmtionofour iny real mean- ay anything on e that of all the II Lchalf of the r brcn brought 1 of the United iEts no rational )f that country ; d Ujcn the op- lucsticn on our \ the contrary, c an argument nd inccn&istcnt bave found the ice to Le. Nor ight have been, may have been f such instruc- ; into the quci- parent. But be Dgie aigument D it belief than looee and evi> dently equi7ocal precedent, the force of which in either case is utterly de 5 stroyed the moment it is subjected to the unerring tes: of first principles.— Indeed it has been the misforiune of our country in this dispute from its commencement, that our diplomatists, instead of recurring to first principles for thesoluiion of the question, have always sought such solution by means which, in reality, have liille or no relation to the end ; such for ins'lance as the collection and collation ol accounts of ancienc voyages, many of them to be (ound only in musty manuscripts, curious and interesting enough, no doubt, either as relics of former limes, or for the particulars which they nar- lale, or the speculations they suggest— valuable indeed in the eyes of an aniiqaarlan — but which lapse of time, subsequent occurrence.", and the mo- ral reasons ot the law of nations, have long since deprived of any practical importance ; even if we suppose that they can in all cases be thoroughly relied upon, which they cannot. No man with such materials can possibly construct an argument upon the question, deserving of the name; and the sooner all such materials, and the narrow views arising otit of them, are discarded, th« better. When this is done, and not till then, we shall have advanced one stt p towards an arrangement of this dispute upon the true principles applicable to the subject. It is not an antiquarian question, such as it appears to be in the eyes of mere scientific men like Humboldt— it is a mere dry question of law of our own times, analogous to many which are frequently discussed and disposed of, with little trouble, in our tribunals of justice. In such a forum, a question of this kind occurring between indi- viduals woiMd be soon settled; and a private controversy, of which out courts would take cognizance, may easily be imagined, involving this very question. But it will be asi^el, if the United States have no exclusive title to (hat country or any part ot it, what then is their title 1 Does it follow hat they have none at all 1 Most certainly not. Their title is the same title which all nations have to it, ex'.:ept{ng only such nations as may have relinquished their claims, viz: a right to occupy at any time such parts of the country as may not at such time be already occupied, subject, however, as bstween ourselves and England, to the restrictions imposed by the con. mentions of 1318 and 1837, and with all the advantages, if any, which those instruments confer. IVO. TIL-TmiB COIVTBNTIOIVg OP 1818 AND 189r. t Having shown, as we thing, most clearly, that the United States have not, nor ever had, any exclusive title, either to the whole Oregon territory ot any part ot it— that they bave no other title than the right which they 40 'possess in common with all the other nations of the earth, to occupy, at any- time, any unoccupied parts of the country, we shall next consider as britfly as possible, the effect of the conventions ol 1818 and 1827. The first effect of the convention of 1818 we have already pointed out- viz., that it involves a most unequivocal denial and condemnation of the Spanish title, by the United States themselves, before that tide was ac- quired; and the like denial and condemnation is again involved in the con- vention of 1827, alter the acquiailion of that title. Enough, we believe, has been already said to show that this is so; and we shall say no more upon the subject, at least for the present. We consider, indeed, that this efi eci is so perfectly obvious, that it would have been quite sufficient to state the point as a self-evident proposition, without taking the trouble to argue it at all, as we have briefly done — that even the few words we have said in sup- port of this view of the case, might well have been spared — that they are entirely quperfliuous. We proceed then to remark further, that ihe convention of 1818 also in. Tolvesan admission by the United States, that their exclusive claim was considered by themselves to be doubtful on all the grounds on which it had then been urged ; for if it was not so considered, why was it nut insisted on at the time 1 If onr government then regarded our title as 'clear and anquestionable,' why did they concede to England a right to use the coun< try in common with ourselves, for the term of ten years 1 Why admit her to share the country with us, for any period however short, or for any pur* pose however insignificant, without stipulating, as we did not, for any ffqi7ivalent1 Do individuals ever deal thus with property— houses or lands or any thing else — to which they claim an exclusive t.tle, believing that title to be ' clear and unquestionable' 7 We have never heard of such a case ■nd cannot imagine that any prudent man— that any man, who was not, in tact, a simpleton — would act thus. Such an arrangement most manifestly precludes the idea of a clear and unquestionable exclusive right in either party ; and it is not worth while to dwell upou the point. Those who dis. put? this, will dispute anything ; it is of no use to reason vith such men The common sense of the world will decide against them— it has, in fact •0 decided already; tor the government has been told a thousand times, both in and out of Congress— they are told it every day by the press, as well of our own country as of other countries— and the remark is in every one's moiitb, that this conventiont implies, that those who signed and ratified it on the part of theUnitcd Slates, doubted the validity of our exclusive claim. This donbt, which of course is also implied in the convention of 1827, the United States are bound to remove, be.'bre they again set up the claim. The occupy, at any nsider as brufly riy pointed out- mnalion of the liat tiile was ac- lived inthecoD- we believe, has r no more upon hat ihis efiectia ienl lo state the >le to argue it at ave said in 8up> 1 — that they are of 1818 also in. iisive claim was on which it had IS it nut insisted r as ' clear and to use the coun- Why admit her t, or for any pur> lid not, for any -houses or lands i, believing that rd of such a case who was not, in most manifestly ve right in either Those who dis. 1 v'ith such men —it has, in (act sand times, both press, as well of i in every one's and ratified it on exclusive claim, ion of 1827, the I the claim. The 41 bardea of proof obviously lies upon our government. And how are they to remcre this doubt 1 Have they any fresh proofs to bring forward whi.'b were not brought forward in 1818] Any new argunaeats to urge, that were not then urged 1 None nt all, except those arising out of the Spanish title, which title, as already observed, this very convention clearly coidemned before it wai acquired, and the coaventiunof 1927, again condemned itaf- ter it was acquired. To remove this doubt, then, is totally out of their power; and of course our government cannot again assert that, their claim is 'clear and unquestionable;' for that would be to contradict themselves — to contradict, now or hereafter, what they impliedly admitted in 1818 and 1827. They have th -n altogether precluded themselves from ever eetling np that claim; and the conventions of 1818 and 1827 together constitute a practical abandonment of the claim — the former indeed alone had that effect* and the latter confirmed such abandnnnient, It will avail nothing to refer to that clause in the conventio nof 1818 which declareii that the instrument shall not be construed to prejudice any claim which either party may have to the disputed territory. The convention, nor withstanding this clause, must be construed to be a mutual admission that neither party had any exclusive title to the country or any part of it ; such a construction results from the very nature ot things — if is inevitable ; and so far as that clause was intend- ed to repel such construction, it is nugatory, if it was, in fact, so intended ; which, we think, it clearly was not. W^e think it was intended for another purpose* viz, to keep the question open for further discussion upon any new merit which either party might be able to show, so long as the conven- tion should last; perhaps also tor some other purpose or purposes, not ma- terial to be pointed out at present, and not for the purpose of keeping it open for discussion upon merits so far as such merits had then been disclosed on either side and already debated. To assign this meaning to the clause- to give it the sense which we have given it— is to give it meaning and sense sufficient. There is no need to go further and contend that the clause was meant to preclude the inference naturally and irresistibly flowing fromthe previous clause, providing for the joint use of the country for ten years by both parlies, viz, that neither party had any exclusive right, either to the whole country or lo any part of it. To impute to it such a meaning, is, la effect, to place it in collision with the previous clausej and it is a familiar principle with respect to the construction of written instruments, that all the different clauses they contain, are to be so construed, when they can be, as to avoid such collisions. But it can be avoided in this case, as we have just shown, and therefore It should be; and the constraciion which we con- tend agaioit, is consequently inadmissible. It is also inadmissible on ano- 42 ther principle, viz, that when a collision necessarilr takes place between a primary or leading clause in a written instrument, and a secondary or sub* ordinals clause, the latter mu-t give way— that the less must yield to the greater— that the thing which is least important, must give place to that irhich is most important. Thus it A in a written contract, Acknowledges bimselt to be indebted to Bin the sum o< $100, lor money lent or goods sold and delivered, and this is followed by a proviso thai the contract shall not be considered or construed to be an admission of a debt, this proviso is per- fectly nugatory, because of iis repugnance to the previous leading clause to which it is subordinate. Here a collision is inevitable. There is no such thing as construing this contract in such a way that both clauses can be ef« fectual. One or the other must necessarily give way ; and it should be, of cour&e, the subordinate clause. To decide otherwise would be to say, that the greater must give place to the less. Possibly a Court of law might re* gard such a contract as frivolous, and, on that ground, altogether refuse to V take cognizance of il ; which would, in effect, be to declare it void ; but if they should take cognizance of it, their decision would be as we have «a« ted. Yet whether they would take cognizance of such a contract or not— and suppose they should declare it void, yet any iran reading it would not hesitate to say, that the contract contained a clear admission of the existence of a debt, and that the refusal to pay that debt, was a palpable breach of moral obligation. And just so in this case. The United States impliedly adffii ted in 1818 the doubtfulness of their exclusive claim, by then agreeing to suspend that claim for the tei^m of ten years; and they again admitted this in 1827, by then agreeing to extend that suspension indefinitely, subjec^ only to the condition, that it might at any time be terminated by a twelve months notice. Who will not say; that this, in spite of any claase to the contrary, does involve a distinct admission of the doabtfulness of their ex* elusive claim 1 It is impossible, by any contrivance or subtlety v?haterer» to evade this inference. It is an inference which the mind will make— irhich it will not suffer itself to be restrained from making, by any derieed The clause in question then does not help the case ; and the United States, by agreeing to suspend their exclusive claim, have practically abandone. that claim. This would undoubtedly be the judgment of a Court of larr at equity, in a similar case between individuals. Thus, suppose that A claftns a:i exclusive title to a certain tract of wild land, end B claims an eqaalofldividedmoietyof the same tract, but neither party can show any thle, and they enter into an agreement for the joint ase of the premises for * tea years by both parties— with a claase in the agreement, that it shall not v«eoM trued to the prejudice of any claim that ehber party may have t<^ 43 place between a ecoDdary or sub* lust yield to the ve place (o that :t, Acknowledges ent or goods sold oniract sball not is proviso is per. s leading clause There is no such lauses can be ef« 1 it should be, of Id be tc say, that of law might re* ogether refuse to e it void ; but if as we havema* contract or uot-^ ling it would not >n of the existence ilpable breach of 1 Slates impliedljr , by then agreeing |r again admitted lefinitely, f«abjec^ ated by a twelve ny elaase to the ilness of their ex* iibtlety whateveri ind will malce — f, by any deviced he United Slates, ically abindone. f a. Court of lav , sappose that A i:nd B claims an ty can show any the premises for , that it shall not rty nay have t(^ the premises. At (he end of ten years, the dispute h renewed, whereopoD B flies his bill in a court uf equity for a partition, setting lorth the claims of the respective parties, together wiihth*^ agreement,-'claiming that the agree* ment has raised a presumption of a tenancy in common, and praying a de- cree accorjingly. A. in his answer, admits the facts set forth in the bill, jucluding the agreement, but denies the presumption insisted on by B, and in turn insists that such presntrption is repelled by (he saving clause. This defence, we are clearly of opinion, would be overruled. A partition would be decreed, we think, without any doubt, upon the principle that the agree* meni presented on its face a clear presumptive case of a tenancy in com* mon in equal moieties, at least as between A and B, and was a praclica* abandonment by A of his exclusive claim. The case supposed is precisely analogous in principle to the present case except that, in the present case, the evidence in favor of a tenancy in com- mon does not consist solely of the agreement ; tor England has a strong case of a tenancy in common or joint-tenancy, under the law of nations, in dependently of the subsisting arrangement; and though the case of the Uni* ^ ted States is, in this respect, as strong as that of England, it is no stronger. The United States have as good a title to claim a tenancy in common as England, (except that England has actual possession of seme parts of the country, while the United States possess none of it,) yet they have no bet- ter, and hare wholly failed to show an exclusive title. The convention then, was in judgment of law a practical abandonment of such exclusive claim; and if there was any court of justice, which could take cognizance ot the casCi and armed with power to enforce its decisions, the United States would be compelled to submit to a partition on the mere strength of the present arraiigement, reserving howerer the claims of other nations. Tbe United States are therefore bound to sabmit to such a partition ; and wonld be even if England could show no canse for it but the conventions of 1818 and 18S7, which however she can dof for she can show cause enough in the law of nations, independently of these conventions, and the U. States can show no canse to the contrary— and on the other hand, in every at* tempt to show such cause, they do bat strengthen the case of England. They do but show, as she does, a case of tenancy in common or joint* tenancy— nothing more. They are then bound— they are under a strong moral obligation, to submit to a partition. They are holden to this by the law of nations, and they are impliedly pledged to it by the conventions of 1818 and 182?. To refuse to do it, is an implied breach of moral obliga- tion— of the law of nations; and of those implied pledges— it is dishonorable There is, at any rate, no kind of faestion. that the whole dispute should be 44 I submilled to arbitration, with power to the arbitrators to make partition The refusal to do this is utterly without excuse— it is awilful and wanton abuse and perversion, by our public men, of the authori'y with which the country has intrusted them. Although we have spoken of the title ot the United States and of England 10 the Oregon territory, as a tenancy in common or joint-tenancy, yet we do not mean to assert that it is strictly of that character ; for the possession of one joint-tenant or tenant in common, is in judgment of law, the po sess- ion of his co-tenant, unless such possession is expressly taken under an exclusive claim, when "t amounts to a dispossession o( such co-tenant. Not so exactly, in the present case; for a possession talrea by one of the parties will not inure to the benefit of the other— a possession taken by England —that is by the subjects of England, under her authorit>, is not the possession of the United States, and cannot inure to their benefit, and vice versa. The subjects and citizens of either party are at liberty, under the subsisting arrangement, so far as concerns the mere right of soil, and 60 far as concerns other nations, to occupy any part of the country to appropriate such part to their own exclusive use— for this plain reason, viz., that they had that right before the convention ot 1818 and the continued exercise of such right was not restrained by that convention, either expressly or by implication. The convention declares that the country shall remain " free and open to the.citizens and subjects of both parties for the term of ten years," &c. How free and open 1 Free and open, in what manner and for what purposes. Why, in ail ways and for all the purposes for which " citizens and subjects" ever go, or at least usaally go, to new countries, viz., to hunt, to trade, to collect furs and pel- tries, to navigate its waters, and to form settlements by taking up and ap propriating lands, to their own ezclasive use, with a view to baild open and enliivate them— which latter purpose necessarily includes the acquisition of absoluts, indefeasible fee-simple interests, not dependent on the pleasore of either government — not dependent on the ultimate sovereignty of the country. For such purposes the country might be left free and open, w ith out directly or necessarily aflecting the ultimate sovereignty ; it is there fore fair to presume that this was meant ; and if this was not meant— if it was not meant that the country should be free and open for each and every of these purposes, then it was not meant that the country should be free and open to the citizens and subjects of both parties, and the con« vention is then made to utter a contradiction ^. for a country in which a man cannot acquire an exclusive property to land, and an absolute dominion over it in reference to the duration of his estate, i. e. a 45 } make partition ivilful and wanton 'i'y «rilh which the es and of England tenancy, yet we do the possession of law, the po sess- y taL-en under an [:h co-tenant. Not one of the parties )ken by England orit>, is not the benefit, and vice at liberty, under ere right of soil, rt of the country e— far this plain vent ion ot 1818 strained by that Qvenilon declares s and subjects of ind open 7 Free , in all ways and er go, or at least lect furs and pel- iking up and ap build upon and the acquisition on the pleasure rereignty of the and open, with ignty ; it is there not meant— if it each and every ntry should be !S, and the con- intry in which ad an absolute is estate, i. e. a fee-simple interest, cannot be said to be free and open to him. It was, therefore, intended, no doubt, that for the exercise of private rights— for the acquisition of private rights— for the acquisition of private property in land, as wtU as in other things, the country should be free and open to the subjects and citizens of both parties, under such restrictions however, as either party might see fit to impose on its own citizens or subjects ; but wiihout any power in eiher tu impose any restiictions upon the subjects or citizens of the opposite party, or bring them under its ju- risdiction, in any way. That right neither party could have - 'thuut pus^ sessing the power to exclude altogether the subjects or citizen^ oi the other — a power which the convention, by declaring that the country should be free and open for ten years, in efTect deniefl tu ooth parties. In other words, neither party can exercise exclusive sovereignty over any part of the country, so long as the present arrangement subsists ; but their respective citizens and subjects may occupy lands there, either under or without any express grant or charter or legislative actof their respective governmemsi to the exclusion of the subjects or citizens of the other party from occupying ^he same lands. And snch exclusiv** occupation by the subjects or citizens of the one party can never inure to the benefit of the opposite party — can- mot be considered as a possess on by such opposite party — can never be made the basis of any claim by such opposite party to the sov>;reigntv over the lands so occupied; n >t even after the termination of the convention • and every such occupation, every settlement m; de in that country, must inure, when the convention shall be terminated, to the benefit of the party by whose aulhoriiv it was made ; aud if not made under the authority of either party, it will inure to the benefit of neither. The relation ot the parties tf.en, is not exactly a joint tenancy or tenancy in common, such as the law recognizes between individuals ; it is a pecu> liar species of joint ownership, such as cannot be conceived of as existing between individuals. It is a kind of relation which the law, or at least, our own municipal law, has never raised between individuals, either expressly or by implication, and cannot raise, because the idea ot mutual sovereignty subjected to a mutual restriction is essential to it. With this exception, the relation is precisely that which the law of nations had previously created between the parties— which it creates between all nations in reference to vninhabited countries— and it seems to be the same relation which was cre- ated by the Nuotka convention between England and Spain. Either parly may do any thing in the country or with the country, and their respective eitizecB or subjects may do any thing, which does not involve a right to 46 i exclude ihe ci'.izens or snbjecls of ilie opposite party,— a right ;o close the couniry or any part ol it against them. Even colonies may be planted and reared there, so far as that can be done under this restriction, which though a material impediment in the way ot doing it, does not hinder it allogeiher. The principle then ol the convention of 181S and 1827, so far as w. have yet been ab^e to discover, is precisely identical wiih the principle of the NootUa convention. I( any occasion had ever aiisen for carrying the Noot- ka convention oul into practice, the results would have b'.'en precisely the same with the practical results ot 'he convention of 18IS. Both conven- tions are merely declaratory of the law of nations as applied to th«N. W. Coast and the cortespondinif interior rounirv. viz, that at the date of thes' conventions respectively, t'le couiiiry was op?n to all mankind— to ihe frst occupant— with the exception of snch parts, if any, as were already occupied— that every nation on earth and every individual of the human family i>ad a right to occupy, at any time, any unoccupied parts of the country. From the foregoing views 0/ the subject, the following results are clear- ly dediicible. Isr. That individuals or corporations who have occupied lands in that conniry without any public authority, either before or since the convention of 18IS, have acquired an unquestionable right to hold such lands, what ever may be the issue ol the present dispute; subject, however, to such so- verelgnty as may be eventually estaldished over those parts cf the countiy in which their respective possessions are severally situated. As to the question what may be considered as an occupation of any given tract of land, or portion of the country; or what specific limits any particular individual, or corporation, or any given settlement, may claim, that must de- pend much on the special circumstances of each case ; and in case of dispute , must necessarily be the subject either of conventional arrar.gcmenis, or ju- dicial decisions. We can only say, that, without doubt, the cidmants will have a right to insist on a liberal, though not extravagant, application of the doctrine of con* ■tructive possession, which must necessarily extend the limits of each claim considerably beyond the ground actually occupied, actually built upon, inclos- ed or cultivated under such claim. 3. (t results from the foregoing views, that when lands in that country have been actually occupied under any sovereign grant, or charter, or legisla- tive act, of any independent government, whicli at the time was not restrained by any treaty from the full exercise of sovereignty there, the sovereignty of BUcli govci- such purliui tion of the will fairly Wo presv pied under had over ta any nation, der the auti part ol the ( States, eith United Sta mere privat to tho bene of the U. S until their ( over gone t There i< a most imp viz.! that ill species of q of the Iludi legislation 1 country, w each one ol than 3S or of one kiri t hcsc, as SI scats of ab all aituatrc hersiiC, vii River; an Btructive them all i Under the one, and Stat(.s she immediate Tho conv ti ce will I fht ;o close the be planted and Iciion, which s not hinder it far ns w? have inciple of the yingihe Nooi- precisely the Both conven- led lo thii N. at the date of mankind— to I were already >r the humaa I parts ot° the ults are clear- lands in that he convention I lands, what ?r, to such so- f the countiy I of any given iny particular that must de- ise of dispute, mcnts, or ju- ave a right to >ctrinRofcon* of each claim upon, incloi. that country er, or legiila- tiot restrained lovcreignty of 47 such gnvernincnt has been fully cstabiiithed over such lands, together with such porliuad of the adjacent country, as a liberal and not extravagant applica- tion of the doctrine of constructive possession and constructive sovereignly, will fairly warrant iho party in claiming. VVc presume however, that no lauds in that country have ever been occu- pied under such circuiustances. No occupation of any part of the country had over taken place prior to the Nootka convention, under the authority of any nation, nor has any such occupation ever taken place since that date, un- der the authority of any nation except England. No occupation at all of any part of the country has ever taken place under the authority of the United States, either before or since the convention of 1818. All the citjzens of the United States who have gone to that country, have gone in the character of mere private adventurers, whose possession of lands there has not yet inured to tho bcnetit of the United States— has not yet established the sovereignty of the U. S. over the lands so possessed, even in a qualified form, nor will, until their Government shall have adopted their acts. And they have, more- over gone there since the convention of 1S18 ; but There is another inference deducible from the foregoing views, which has a most important bearing on this dispute, as we will now proceed to explain viz.)' that immediately upon tho termination of the present arrangement, the species of qualiflcd sovereignty which England, has acquired through the acts of the Hudson's Buy Company (proceeding under its charter and under the legislation of the L'nglish Parliament) over sundry detached parts of the country, will be at once converted into an absolute sovereignty, at least over each one of ihcjc portions separately. These amount, we believe, to no les^ than 33 or 40, for so many different posts, factories, settlements, or stations uf one kind or another, this Company is said to have in that country ; and these, as soon, as the present convention is ended, will all be just so many scats of absolute, unqualifiid Englinh eovt-reignty. But they are all or nearly all situated in that part of tho country which England proposes to retain to hersrii \i/,. North of the 4yih parallel and North and Wcsi of the Columbia River ; and the spplicalion of the durtrines of ront>lructive possession and con- structive sovereignty in these nuiiurous rttablishmcnts, will in effect fuse them ail into one colony, and spread her sovrnignty over that whole region. Under the iriflucnre of this doctrine, those settlements will all coalesce into one, and form a single colony. "What then would be the effect, if the U. StaUs should give to England the twelve months' notice 7 England might immediately waive the twelve months' notice, for she has a right to waive it. The conventions of 1818 and 1827 are then at once ended, an4 thus the no- tice will refiult in the almost immediate establishment of her sovereignty ove' 48 that part of the country, without any express asBumption of such sovereignty on her part ; and she will have a right at once to exclude our citizens alto- gether from that part of the country, as she no doubt will do. The United States will have no time to acquire any foothold whatever in that region England will claim, and rightfully, to be the first occupant of that part of the country, and of course, our claim to it will bo at an end. She has done and is doing too much to that pari of the country to leave us any room for contend- ng that she has neglected it, as the whole country was neglected by Spain. We cannot complain that she is not filling it up with people as fast as she might, for she can retort upon us this argument, by pointing to the immense tracts of unoccupied lands within our undisputed limits, to say nothing of the country beyond the Rocky Mountains South of the 49th parallel and South and East of the Columbia, which in any event, short of a war, she will proba< biy be willing enough to leave to us. Such a proceeding on our part, viz. the giving of the notice, so met by her, would undoubtedly have the effect of investing her with the sovereignty of the Columbia River; fur her subjects, acting under her authority, have had the exclusive use of the waters of that river for a long term of years, with the ex- ception of a partial enjoyment of the river by private adventurers of the Uni. ted States, within the last three or four years ; which can avail nothing to th e U. States, because it did not take place under the authority of our government ; and therefore cannot be made the ground of a national claim. Now suppose that England, relying on the doctrine of constructive sover- eignty, should take the course above suggested ; or suppose that, by a procla- mation or act of Parliament, having first terminated the treaty at once by waiv. ing the twelve months, she should declare the country. North of the 49th par- allel and North and West of the Colubibia River, subject to her sovereignty; would the law of nations warrant the United States in doing the same thing 1 Most clearly not ; for the United States are not in possession of a single foot ef the country, certainly not in their political capacity. That would be, roost unequivocally, an aggressive measure, war would be the inevitable result, and our government would unquestionably be wrong. And would the claim of England to that whole region, under the doctrine of constructive sovereignty as applied to her settlements, with or without an express assumption of such sovereignty by proclamation or act of Parliament, be an aggressive measure on her part 1 We are clearly of opinion that it would not ; for the truth is, and it is not to be disguised, that England has, in fact, already occupied that part of the country. She has acquired a title to it by first "c^upancy, subject only to the restrictions of the conventions of 1818 and 1827, and the instant these restrictions are lemoved, her title will be complete, at least as against the Uni- 49 ch sovereigntj r cilizens alto- , Tho United n that region hat park of the has done and m for contend- cted by Spain. a« fast as she to the immense nothing of the illel and South she will proba* so met bj her, sovereignty of y, have had the s, with tho ex- ers of the Uni. nothing to th e iir government; itructive sover- at, by a procla- t once by waiv- Df the 49th par- sr sovereignty; le same thing 1 of a single foot would be, most able result, and Id the claim of ive sovereignty tnption of such ive measure on lie truth is, and upied that part y, subject only le instant these luxiBt the Uni- ted States, who are estopped from iaying there is yet too much of the country, lying vacant and unappropriated. They are themselves the holders of too much land of that description, as we have already remarked, to tyko this ground. Upon that point the mouths of our people are shut for at least half ofa century to couio. But suppose no notice be given by either side, and that matters remain as ihey are ; the same species of qualified sovereignty, which has been aU ready acquired in thai country by England, beyond the 49th parallel and North and West ct the Columbia River, can gradually, in one form or an- other, be acquired by the United States, over ihatbame part of the country, as well as other portions; and whenever the time shall come, as it proba- bly will, sooner or later, when the aggregate extent ol country, covered by this qualified sovereignty of the United States, will greatly exceed the aggre- gale extend of country coverei. by the qualified sovereignty of England; the English portions of the country, and England herself, will, by that time, in all probability be perlectly willing that the United States shall assume ex- claaive sovereignty over the whole ; or, rather, perhaps, the two qufilified sovereignties will quietly coalesce into one independent government, and such indeed the government of that coantry ought to be, aa Mr Gallatin contends. What then are the United Stales to gain by giving the notice ? Clearly nothing. It is idle then to think of giving it; and those who propose to give it either do not understand the law of the case, or are desiroos of perverting the law. Some of theiB may indeed be lawyers, so called, or so calling themselves ; bat they appear to be mnch belter acquainted with the contemptible ma- chinery ot.party politics, than with the pages of Coke or Blackstone— Hale Hargrave, or Selden— Grotius or Vattel. Such men, we are truly sorry to say, are many of our public functionaries, who, through ignorance or wil- l\ilness, or both, have done much to mislead public opinion upon this sub- ject. They seldom or never speak or write upon the subject or allude to it i \ any way, without saying bmething which is calculated to have that effect* Not content with asserting that the whole country belongs to the United States, they studiously affect to speak of it on all occasions as * our terri- tory,' and as being 'in our possession,' when less arrogant and offensive Ian. gaage would just as well answer their purpose. What right have they thus wantonly to jeopardize the lives and property of us the people, by such causeless provocation of a foreign nation, and one especially, with whom it in so desirable, so almost indispensable to onr national prosperity, to caltivate friendly relations 1 This we say again, is an abuse and perver- 60 ■ioa of (be lalhority which we the people have delegated to theni. And they may depend, it will go far to deprive them of the respect and ea:eem and coufiuance ol every prudent man of all parties. 'Our territory 'and ' in our poisessiioa !' iVhy, we have not as yet a loot of territory— we do not own a fout of land beyond the Rocky Mountains — for the very suffi- cient reason that wa can claim no land there as ours, until we have first occupied it, and in our nationul capacity we have not occupied an inch of the country. To talk of its btiiig ' our territory' and ' in our pos- sefsion,' under such eircumstance», is exceedingly shallow talk, let it b« whosA talk it may. Some of these men have told us that we are to regard the agents of the Hudson's Bay Company in that country merely as 'our tenants at willt* Can anything be more ridiculous 1 Is it really ignorance, or is it prrverse- uass 1 They ' our tenants at will'— the first occupants of a country, which most clearly belonged to all the world 1 Can folly go further 1 Call them what we please, we shall, no doubt, find them ugly customers, it we undeitake to eject them. We have no hesitation to tell the men who talk in this wsy, that they either do not understand the very first princi- ples ol the subject, or iheir hearts are fatally bent on mischief, ami their patriotism is a shsm. Is it too much to aay ot any man, that he knows nothing about the matter, who can gravely declare, as a certain Senator is said to have done, that he finds a solution of this question in the tretty of Utrecht 1 And what can the treaty of Utrecht, made in 1713 or U, have to do with s. dispute about the country beyond the Rocky Mountains in 18461 The very children at school know that this is impossible, and would laugh at the suggestion. What did the negotiators of that day knov or care about that couiitry, and wha'. bad ibey to do with it 1 The hon- ourable Senator might as well pretend that he finds a solution of theqtiea* tion in the first chapter ot Genesis. But to conclude; we have no he&itation in saying that Ens;land has made our government a liberal offt^r— the oiler to reiinqui&h to us all those parts of the country of which she is not already the first occupant, under a fair and reasonable, or at any rate, not cxiravasant application of the doctrines of construe* ive possession and constructive sovereignty. She has even of^ lered to share with us the navigation of the Columbia River, o( which shtf is without doubt the first occupant, the pretences of the U. S. to contrArj notwithstanding. To say that we will not accept this ofier, nnr submit the question to arbitration, is unequaled infatuation— it is taking a stand iq wiiich tbfl people of this country, we predict with confidence, will not sus- 6i (hem. And !ct and eceein territory' and rltory— we do he rery suffi- htil we have occupied an d ' io our pos- talk, let it be agents of the ania at will!' is it prrverse- :ountry, which urther 1 Call castomera, it the men who iry first princi- hief, and their ihat he knows :ertain Senator in in the treaty i 1713 or H, :ky Mountains mpossible, and that day know iti Thehon. ion of the qoea* ;land has made alt those parts , under a fair >f (he doctrines )e has even of- ', of which sh<} S. to contra r J nor submit the ing a stand ip !, will not 8US< tain the Aduiinistratiun.— Yuu ni eiliiily go all length* io vindiia ins the clear andjukt rigblsof the country, tiiber against England or ava'.nst the world, if needful} but if you pei'sixt in urging your mistaken vie^vii uf their rij i.;iw .ij. . ■ ..J ;5 i;- vv^iKB! r. ,.i ,i *i '■ . ,.i-* 1 /■ ;. ^j-f