IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 If ilM IIM 
 
 2.2 
 
 
 12.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.4 
 
 J4 
 
 
 < 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 VI 
 
 ^ 
 
 n 
 
 ■em 
 
 W %/.>/ 
 
 
 O 
 
 y. 
 
 y;M 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
C!HM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 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. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couieur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculee 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 Cartes gAographiques en couieur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relii avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge interieure 
 
 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 ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas iti filmies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplementaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur axemplaire 
 qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-^tre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normaie de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couieur 
 
 r~—[ Pages damaged/ 
 
 Pages endommagees 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurees et/ou pelticui^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d^colorees, tachet^es ou piquees 
 
 [~~| Pages detached/ 
 
 Pages d^tachees 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality inigale de {'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponibie 
 
 r~7| Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 r~| Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 p~1 Only edition available/ 
 
 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., cnt ^t§ fiJm^es ^ nouveau de facon a 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 The 
 
 to tl 
 
 The 
 pot 
 oft 
 film 
 
 Grit 
 beg 
 the 
 sior 
 oth( 
 firit 
 sior 
 or il 
 
 The 
 sho 
 TIN 
 whi 
 
 Mai 
 diffi 
 enti 
 beg 
 righ 
 reqi 
 met 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmad h«r« has b««n reproduced thanks 
 to tha ganarosity of: 
 
 Library Division 
 
 Provincial Archives of British Columbia 
 
 L'axamplaira film* fut raproduit grica A la 
 gAnirosIti da: 
 
 Library Division 
 
 Provincial Archives of British Columbia 
 
 Tha imagas appearing hara ara tha bast quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Las images suivantas ont 4tA raproduites avac la 
 plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at 
 da la nettet* de I'exemplaira filmA, et en 
 conformity avac las conditions du contrat da 
 filmaga. 
 
 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. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol Y (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Las exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimAe sont filmAs en commen^ant 
 par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la 
 darniAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par la second 
 plat, salon la cas. Tous las autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont fiim^s en commen^ant par la 
 premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 darniire Image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: la symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, 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 cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre 
 filmAs it das taux de reduction diffArents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est HlmA A partir 
 de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, 
 et de haut en bas, an prenant la nombre 
 d'images nAcessaira. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
■' t 
 
20th Congress, 
 Ut Session. 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 Ho. ov Reps. 
 
 Executive. 
 
 TERRITORY WEST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS. 
 
 KtOiSSA^a 
 
 fV- 
 
 ':h-~ 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 TRAXAMITTING THK CORMESPOITSSSrCE BETWEEN 
 
 THIS GOVERNMENT ArD THAT OF GREAT BRITAIN, 
 
 ■,-=t;;|jr-, ■ 
 
 OW THE srBJECT OF THE 
 
 CL>9IM8 OF THE TWO GOVEBJ^MEJTTS 
 
 J*U'!!-' 
 
 T© THE 
 
 'SSKBVSOn WS8T OP THS »OOXV VLOWTAIKM^ 
 
 ■'*.,«•■■ "tH^ 
 
 March 15, 1828. 
 
 V, nead, and kid upon the table. 
 
 '^ 
 
 trs^Sir- 
 
 
 
 ■:. ^^^^"- ■ , 
 
 • 
 
 ■■ 
 
 'W^ASHINOTON : 
 
 
 L'RTKTEn BT OAtES 
 
 £i BEATOjr. 
 
 
 1828. 
 
 ^ 
 
 i 
 
 • 
 
 

[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 B 
 
 To the Hmse of Bepresentatives of the United States: 
 
 W ASHiNOTOi^y 15tA JIfarcA, 16S8. 
 
 In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives, of 
 the 2l8t ultimo, requesting me to lay before the House, correspondence, 
 not heretofore communicated, between the Government of the United 
 States and that of Great Britain, on the subject of the claims of the 
 two Governments to tlie Territory westward of the Rocky Moun- 
 tains, I transmit, herewith, a report of the Secretary ef State, with the 
 documents requested by the resolution. 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 
 
:i^:» - 
 
 r- •n- 
 
[Doc. No. 199.J 
 
 ■ a 
 
 '', . 
 
 / .,- 
 
 - Department of State, > ' , • 
 
 ' : • Washingtorif I3th JUarch, 1828. 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred a resolution of 
 the House of Representatives, of the 21st ultimo, requesting the Pre- 
 sident to lay before that House any correspondence, not heretofore 
 communicated, which may have taken place between the Government 
 of the United States and that of Great Britain, on the subject of tlie 
 claims of the two Governments to the Territory westward of the 
 Rocky Mountains, if, in his opinion, tlic same can be communicated 
 without injury to the public interest, has the honor to report to the 
 President the accompanying pamphlet, which, with the manuscript 
 copy added thereto, contains copies of so much of the correspondence 
 required, as, in the judgment of the Secretary, can, \yith propriety, 
 be made public at this time. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. ' ' : 
 
 H. CLAY. - 
 
1 . 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.'J 
 
 n 
 
 I 
 
 List of Papers accompanying the report of the Secretary of State^ of 
 
 the I5th Jfarch, IH2S, 
 
 Mr. Clay to Mi*. Gallatin, 
 
 Same to same, .... 
 
 Same to same, .... 
 
 Same to same, .... 
 
 Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Clay, 
 
 4Same to same, . . . - 
 
 Same to same, .... 
 
 Same to same, .... 
 
 Same to same, ..... 
 
 Same to same, . . . ^ 
 
 Same to same 
 
 Same to same, .... 
 Same to same, • . ^ . 
 Same to same, .... 
 Same to same, .... 
 Protocols, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
 ]Pix)jectof Convention. 
 Project of an article of Convention, A. 
 Declaration proposed to be annexed to 
 respecting N. W. boundary. 
 
 1 gth June, 1 826. Extract 
 23d June, 1826. do. 
 8th August, 1826. Copy. 
 24tliFeb. 18'27. do. 
 16th Nov. 1826. do. 
 25th Nov. 1826. do. 
 2d December, 1826. do. 
 5th Dec. 1 826. Extract. 
 12th Dec. 1826. do. 
 20th Dec. 1826. Copy. 
 29th May, 1827. Extract. 
 20th June, 1827. do. 
 23d June, 1827. Copy. 
 27th June, 1827. Extract. 
 7th August, 1827. Copy. 
 10, 12, and 13. 
 
 the renewal of the Convention 
 
 of 
 on I 
 
 '> ,» 
 
 
[Doc. No. 19ft.] J 
 
 ... - ' 
 
 [bxtbact.] '^ 
 
 Jfr. Clay to Mr, Oallatin. 
 
 June 19» 1826. 
 
 ^<8. The establishment of a boundary between the territories of the 
 two parties, beyond the Rocky Mountains, and on the Northwest coast 
 of America. 
 
 It is not thought necessary to add much to the argument advanced 
 on this point in the instructions given to Mr. Rush, (a copy of which 
 is herewith communicated,) and that which was employed by him, in 
 the course of his negotiation, to support our title, as derived from 
 prior discovery and settlement at the mouth of the Columbia, and 
 from the treaty with Spain, concluded on the 2Sd of February, 1819* 
 That argument is believed to have conclusively established our title, 
 on both grounds. Nor is it conceived that Great Britain has, or can 
 make out, even a colorable title to any portion of the Northwest Coast. 
 If she had any claim, prior to the treaty of 1763, it was renounced 
 by that treaty, according to which the Mississippi was fixed as the 
 western limit of her territories on this Continent. If she acquired 
 any title, subsequent to that epoch, we have yet to learn how, and by 
 what means, it was obtained. The settlement at Nootka Sound, in 
 1788, cannot be admitted to have conferred any; but if it did, that 
 settlentent was north of the line, to which we are now willing to 
 agree. By the renunciation and transfer contained in the treaty with 
 Spain of 1819, our right extended to the 60th degree of north latitude. 
 By our treaty with Russia, of April, 1824, it has been agreed to limit 
 it to the 54th degree. By agreeing to our proposal, to adopt the 
 parallel of 49, which is conceived in a genuine spirit of concession 
 and conciliation, and under the operation of the Russian Treaty, 
 Great Britain will acquire, what she had not before, or, at least, 
 what was open to much controversy, a clear title to an extent of five 
 degrees of latitude fronting on the Pacific, which is but little short of 
 . that which will appertain to the United States. It was stated by 
 the British Plenipotentiaries to Mr. Rush, that the surrender to the 
 United States of the post at the mouth of Columbia river, was in 
 fulfilment of the stipulations of the first article of the treaty of Ghent, 
 without affecting questions of right on either side. It is most true 
 that the restoration was in conformity to that article, but there is 
 nothing in the terms of the article which implies any reservation of 
 right on the part of Great Britain. And does not the stipulation it- 
 self, in virtue of which she was bound to restore it, demonstrate that, 
 at the date of that treaty, she had no pretensions to the moi^th of Co- 
 lumbia ? If she then had any claim, would she have contracted to 
 restore the possession unconditionally, and without even the formality 
 of a reservation of her right ? The course which was adopted in re- 
 
 ■iJ v; .■ 
 
 
'I 
 
 I i 
 
 S [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 ga'rd to anotlici' territorial possrssion, claimed by botli parties, was 
 very «litferent. She Iiatl reduced, by her arms, Moose Island, in the 
 Bay of PaMsnmaquoddy, as well as the post at Columbia. She re- 
 fuHcd to restore Moose Iftland, on the ground of the title which she 
 set up to it, as being included within the limits of Nova Scotia ; and 
 the resjicctivc titles of both parties were agreed to be referred to a 
 Board of Commissioners. Now, if, with respect to two possessions, 
 taken by her arms during the war, she agreed to restore one uncon- 
 ditionally, and insisted upon retaining the occupancy of the otiier, as 
 belonging to her, is not the inference irresistible, that her present 
 claim to that which was so restored, did not then exist, but has been 
 subsequently gotten up ? 
 
 It is true that the third article of the Convention of 1818, recog- 
 nizes that Great Britain then had claims on the Northwest Coast, but 
 it neither defines nor settles them, nor specifies when they had their 
 origin. The same article contains an express declaration that it is 
 not to affect the claims of any other Power. Now, it having been 
 shown that the title of Spain extended to the 60th degree of north 
 latitude, tliat must have been one of those which were particularly in 
 the contemplation of the parties to the above Convention of 1818. 
 And we have already seen, that, subsequently to that period, the 
 United States acquired from Spain all her territorial rights on the 
 Northwest Coast, north of the parallel of 42, as far as they extended, 
 and consequently up to 60. As by the Convention of 1818, the 49th 
 parallel of north latitude has been agreed to be the line of boundary be- 
 tween the territories of tlie United States and Great Britain, east of 
 the Stony Mountains, there would seem to arise, from that stipulation, 
 a strong consideration for the extension of the line along the same 
 parallel, west of them, to the Pacific Ocean. In bringing themselves 
 to consent to this boundary, the Government of the United States feel 
 that they are animated by a spirit of concession and compromise, 
 which they persuade themselves that of Great Britain cannot but re- 
 cognize, Jind ought not to liesitate in reciprocating. You are then 
 authorized to propose the annulment of the third article of the Con- 
 vention of 1818, and the extension of the line on the parallel of 49, 
 from the eastern side of the Stony Mountains, where it now termi- 
 nates, to the Pacific Ocean, as the permiinent boundary between the 
 territories of the two Powers in that quarter. This is our ultima- 
 tum, and you may so announce it. We can consent to no other line 
 more favorable to Great Britain. You are authorized, further, to 
 agree, that, if the above line shall pass any of the branches of the Co- 
 lumbia river, which are navigable from where it intersects them to 
 the ocean, British subjects shall not be disturbed in the right freely to 
 navigate such branches, and the Columbia itself, to the ocean, in com- 
 mon with the citizens of the United States. That, in the mean time, 
 until tlie line is actually traced and marked out, this right of naviga- 
 tion shall be so enjoyed in common ; that the contracting parties 
 will adopt measures in concert to have the line marked within the 
 next ensuing term of fifteen years ; and that, if upon the experiment 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 «# 
 
 V 
 
 being made, tlic brandies of the Columbia aro not navigable by boats 
 from where tho lino passes tiiom to the Columbia, the British right to 
 navigate them sliall cease. If the British Plenipotentiaries should 
 insist upon British subjects, who may have made any settlements or 
 establishments south of 49. being allowed time for removal, you may 
 agree to tho term of five years for that purpose; making the stipula- 
 tion reciprocal, so as to comprehend American settlements or estab- 
 lishments, if there bo any, north of that parallel. And you will fur- 
 ther propose, as a regulation which is deemed by the (Government of 
 the United States to be material in preventing collisions, that the ci- 
 tizens and subjects of the two parties shall, in trading with the na- 
 tives, and in the pursuit of game and fur, be restricted to tho sides of 
 the line agreed upon, of their respective countries. It would bo 
 competent for each Government, after the fixation of the line, by its 
 separate legislation, to exclude foreigners ; but it is better that notico 
 of such exclusion, to all persons concerned, should bo at once pro- 
 mulgated in tho body of the treaty itself." 
 
 «The third and fourth articles of the Convention of the 20th day 
 of October, 1818, negotiated by you and Mr. Rush, are limited, re- 
 spectively, to a period of ten years from that date. As the term will 
 now soon run out, it is necessary for the parties to consider whether 
 those articles shall be allowed to expire, or be continued with or with- 
 out modifications. The third article relates to the territories claimed 
 by the contracting parties, on the Northwest Coast of America, west- 
 ward of the Stony Mountains, and provides, among other things, that 
 they shall be fi>ee and open, for the abovementioncd term, to the ves- 
 sels, citizens, and subjects, of the two Powers. If you should be 
 able, according to the instructions herein previously given, to agree 
 with the British Government on a boundary between the territories of 
 the two parties, that article may be rescinded, or left to expire by the 
 lapse of time. If you should be unable to come to any such agree- 
 ment, you may consent to that article remaining in force during an- 
 other term of ten years. From a despatch just received from Mr. 
 King, communicating a note from Mr. Canning, under date of the 
 20th April last, .(copies of both are herewith,) the probability is strong 
 that you will find no difficulty in arranging this question of boundary 
 satisfactorily. 
 
 The fourth article relates to the Convention concluded at London^ 
 on the third of July, 1815, and continues and extends it for the before- 
 mentioned term of ten years. You are authorized to agree to its fur- 
 ther extension for another period of ten years, and beyond the expira- 
 tion of that time, until one party shall give to the other six calendar 
 months' written notice of his desire to put an end to it ; at the end of 
 whvcJLtime it shall altogether cease." . , 
 
 
I 
 
 i» 
 
 1^ 
 
 „. .--^ Ji 
 
 ■■•"V 
 
 pioc. No. 199.] 
 
 Mr, Canning to Mr. King, 
 
 [ 1 
 
 .^ FoBEiON Office, ,9pril 20th, 1826. 
 
 !r-.:;i 
 
 ITie unJersigned, his Majesty's Principal Seci-etary of State for 
 Foreign Affairs, has the, hontfr to request Mr. Rufus Ring, Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, to 
 have the goodness to inform the undersigiled, whetlier Mr. King is 
 
 Itrovided with instructions for the resumption of the negotiations of 
 ast year,Avith respect to a settlement of boundaries upon the North- 
 west Coast of America ? The undersigned is particnlarly induced to 
 make this inquiry, by having receive^l^ from Mr. Yaughan, a copy of 
 the communication lately addressed by the President of the United 
 States to the House of Representative!^, of that part of Mr. Rush's 
 correspondence of last year which' relates to this important subject. 
 
 The undersigned has to add, that the British Plenipotentiaries, Mr» 
 Hiiskisson and Mr. Addington^ are perfectly prepared to enter inta 
 Gonferenc<)8 t(^ith Mr. King thereupon ; and either to renew the pro- 
 posal brotfglit.forward by Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Stratford Canning,, 
 in their conference of the 13th of July, 1824, and unanswered ; or to 
 bring forward another ; or to discuss any new pro])ofm1 on the same 
 subject, which may be suggested on the part of the Plc^nipotentiary of 
 the United States. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. Rufus King, the 
 assurance of his high consideration. 
 
 GEORGE CANNING. 
 
 RtJFUs Kiifo, Esq. &c. &c. 
 
 t^r 
 
 
 ■■^. 
 
 ■ \ 
 1 I? 
 
 • tl 
 
 .•I 
 
 ."--:*•■»:, • 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 jt-k-- ^-' ^-;-''^'.r^4'J 
 
 [extract.] 
 
 Mr, Clay to Mr, GaUafin.-— No. 5,_^ ' 
 
 Department OF State, y* 
 
 ._ • Washington, Z^d Jane, 1826. 
 
 (< Mr. Crook's information adds but little to what was previously 
 possessed. If the land on the Northwest Coast, between the mouth of 
 the Columbia river and the parallel of 49, be bad, and therefore we 
 should lose but little in relinquishing it, the same consideration will 
 apply to the British. The President cannot consent to vary the line 
 proposed in your instructions ; and I think when you come to examine 
 them in connexion with the late note transmitted by Mr. King from 
 Mr. Canning, you will not think it necessary." 
 
 _%-> 
 
 .*-, 
 
 ^ ■^■' 
 
 "A*- 
 
-Si£<£m 
 
 m 
 
 [Doc. No. 190.] 
 
 JSxtmds of a letter [Mh. 6] from Mr, Clat/t Secretary of State* to Mr, 
 Gallatin* Envoy Extraordinary and Minister FUnipotentiary U, 8. 
 to Great Britain, dated 
 
 ** LilciNOTON, 9th Mgust, 1826. ^ 
 
 <<Tour letter, under date at New York, on the 29th of June last» 
 having been duly received at the Department of State, and submitted 
 to the President, was subsequently transmitted to me atJhis place, 
 and I now have the honor to address you, agreeably to his directions. 
 
 He is very desirous of an amicable settlement of all the points of 
 difference between Great Britain and the United States, on just prin- 
 ciples. Such a settlement, alone, would be satisfactory to the People 
 of the United States, or would command the concurrence of their Sen- 
 ate. In stating, in your instructions, the terms on which the Presi- 
 •dent was willing that the several questions pending between the two 
 GoverJiments might be arranged, he yielded as much to a spirit of 
 concession as he thought he could consistently with the interests of 
 this CQuntry. He is especially not now prepared to authorize any 
 stipulations involving a cession of territory belonging to any State in 
 the Union, or the abandonment, express or implied, of the right to 
 navigate the St. Lawrence, or the surrender of any territory south o( 
 latitude 49 on the Northwest Coast. Adhering to these restrictions, 
 the President would, in other respects, be willing that you should ex- 
 ercise more latitudein the conclusion of a treaty which you believe 
 -would be acceptabll^o the People of our country, and would obtain 
 the constitutional sanction. Desirable as it is to arrange all matters 
 of difference betweien the two countries, it is much better that they 
 should remain unadjusted than be settled on terms disadvantageous to 
 the United States, and which would therefore be unsatisfactory to the 
 People, and to other Departments of the Government. With these 
 observations, the motive of which your candor will enable you justly 
 to appreciate, I will now proceed more particularly to notice the 
 several subjects of which your letter treats, in the order in which 
 they are there stated. 
 
 II. The President cannot consent that the boundary between the 
 territories of the two Powers, on the Northwest coast, should be south 
 of 49. * * * * There is no objection to an extension of the time to 
 be allowed to Bi'itish settlers to remove from south of 49, to a period 
 of fifteen years, if you should find that it would facilitate an arrange- 
 ment." 
 
 Extract of a letter, JVb. 18./ro?n Mr. Clay, Secretary of State, to Mr. 
 ^■^ Gallatin, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary V. 8. 
 to Great Britain, dated 
 
 24th Fbbp VARY, 1 ear. 
 
 *< Your despatches from No. 26 to 48, inclusive, have been receiv- 
 ed, together with the accompanying documents, and have been all 
 
m 
 
 [Boc. No. 199.] 
 
 laid before tlte President. And I shall now, under his direction, Com- 
 municate to you such instructions as appear to be called for, by the 
 state of the pending negotiations between the United States and Great 
 Britain, with which you are cMirged. In doing tliis, I shall take up 
 the several subjects which require notice, in the order in which they 
 have been considered, in the conferences which you have had with the 
 British Plenipotentiaries, beginning with — 
 
 1st. The Northwestern boundary. v 
 
 As there seems to bo no prospect of an agreement at this time upon 
 a permanent boundary, which shall separate the territories of the two 
 Powers beyond the Stony Mountains, and as no utility is perceived 
 in prolonging the discussions which have arisen on that subject, I shall 
 abstain from any particular notice of tlie written statement, annexed 
 by the British Plenipotentiaries to the protocol of the sixth conference, 
 of the claims and views of Great Britain relative to that country.. 
 New and extraordinary as those claims and views strike us, they will, 
 nevertheless, receive all the consideration which is due to the high re- 
 spect which is sincerely felt for the Government of Great BHtain, and 
 to the official and deliberate exhibition which has been made of theni. 
 They certainly have not yet produced any conviction in the mind of 
 the President, of the validity of the pretensions brought forwaiH^ nor 
 raised any doubts of the strength and solidity of our own title. I re- 
 peat what has been already stated in your general instructions, that 
 the offer of a boundary on the parallel of 49° was made in a spirit of 
 liberal conce.ssion, and notwithstanding our beliUfthat our title might 
 be satisfactorily made out mush further north. Supposing Great Bri- 
 tain to have any well-founded claim, if there be, as there are believed 
 to be, no other Powers than the United States and Great Britain who 
 can assert rights of territorial sovereignty, between 42° and 54* 40', 
 there can be no equitable division of the intermediate space, but an 
 equal partition. Such an equal partition would assign about the 
 parallel of 49° as the comnion boundary. The Pesident regrets that 
 the British Plenipotentiaries have thought proper to decline the pro- 
 posal which you made of that line ; and If am cliarged'by him to direct 
 you to communicate the expression of this regret, and to declare that 
 the American Government does not hold itself bound, hereafter, in 
 consequence of any proposal which it has heretofore made, to agree to 
 the Hue which has been so proposed and rejected, but will consider 
 itself at liberty to contend for the full extent of our just claims ; which 
 declaration you will have recorded in the protocolof one of your con- 
 ferences. . Such a protest you have already made, and had record€(t 
 in the protocol of the third conference; but it will give more weight 
 to it. to have it stated that it has been done by the express direction of 
 thej*resident. 
 
 As you have not been able to conclude any agreement, fixing a per- 
 manent boundary, it is preferred that there should be a simple renew- 
 al of the third article, in the convention of 1818, without any other al- 
 teration than that whi(^h ynu proposed, of the omission of the clause re- 
 specting the claims of other Powers ; and on that modification you will 
 not insist, if it be objected to. 
 
rCoc.No. 199*] 
 
 18 
 
 The second article in the projet presented by the British Flenipo* 
 ientiai:ies, is inadmissible. Su far as its tendency would be to pre- 
 vent the United States from exercising acts of exclusive sovereignty 
 at the mouth of the Columbia, it wouU&be contrary to their rights, as 
 acknowledged both in the Treaty of Ghent, and by the surrender of 
 that place, made by the British Government in consequence of that 
 treaty, it is also objectionable, because it does not define, but leaves 
 open to disputation, the acts which might be deemed 4he exercise of an 
 exclusive sovereignty. And it has been properly observed by you» 
 that, from the nature of our institfitions, our rights in that quarter 
 must be protected, and our citizens secured in .their In wCul pursuit^, 
 by some species of government, different from that which it has beeii 
 or may be the pleasure of the British Government to establish. The 
 form of Territorial Government, is that which is most approved by 
 our experience ; but such a government might be considered incom- 
 patible with the second article, if it were agreed to. if there be a 
 simple renewal of the third article of the convention of 1818, Great 
 Britain will have abundant security in the good faith of the United 
 States for the fulfilment of all its stipulations ; and you will therefore 
 resist the adoption of the second article in the British projet, if it 
 should^ even render you unable to .come to any agreement for the re- 
 newal of the provision in the convention of 1818. 
 
 ^ith respect to the assignment of certain portions of the Territory 
 to each Power*, oyer<.yvhich they may respectively exercise acts of ex- 
 clusive sovereignt}i#ieaving an intermediate debatable space, it does 
 not appear probable that suchoin arrangement as would be satisfac- 
 tory to both parties can be made. If, for example, we were to agree 
 that such exclusive sovereignty might be exerted by the United States 
 over all the territory, from the mouth of the Columbia south, to the 
 42d parallel, and by Great Britain, over all the territory from 49° to 
 54° 40', the intermediate space between the Columbia and 49% being 
 common to both parties, a larger extent of territory, would be assign- 
 ed to Great Britain than io the United States ; and, in the end, that 
 which was thus held in common^ would probably be equally divided 
 between the two parties, as the only equitable mode of separating it 
 Such a division would place the common boundary line south of the 
 parallel of 49°, and would give us less territory on the Pacific, than 
 if we were at once to agree to an equal division of the entire upace 
 between 42° and 54° 40'. If, which is not likely. Great Britain would 
 consent to the exercise of exclusive sovereignty, on the part of the 
 United States over the whole space from the mouth of Columbia, 
 south, to the 42°, leaving the residue, from the mouth of the Colum- 
 bia to 54° 40', in common, as is provided for in the third article of the 
 convention of 1S18, we should be willing to agree to such astipulation. 
 
 In respect to the duration of the renewed provision, the President 
 prefers that it should be fixed for the same term of ten years, which 
 is limited in the Convention of 1818. But if the article in regard to 
 this subject should not be thrown into the shape of a separate Conven- 
 tion, but should be inserted in the same Convention which regulates 
 
A 
 
 ■■■' 
 
 
 :]• 
 
 1 -: 
 
 i'i 
 
 14 
 
 [Boc. No. 199.] 
 
 . .i .V 
 
 our commercial intercourse with the British European possessions, 
 you are then authorized to agree that the whole Convention shall con- 
 tinue in force after the expiration of the term of ten years, and until 
 one party shall have given to the other six months' written notice of 
 his desire to pat an end to the Convention." 
 
 ■ft 
 
 Mr. Oallatin to Mr. day-'-^o. 26. 
 
 Hon. Henbt ClaY) 
 
 Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 London, Abvcmftcr 16 /A, 1826. \ 
 
 Sir : The pending negotiations, and the researches the^f render ne- 
 cessary, do not permit me to communicate more than a brief account 
 of what it seems most important that you should know without delay. 
 
 The negotiations on the subject of the convention signed o^ the 13th 
 instant, had been conducted in presence of Mr. Canning, and rather 
 with him than with the British Plenipotentiaries. Yesterday, 15th, 
 the first regular conference was held with these alone, when we agreed 
 to take up, in the first place, the subject of the territorial claimf west 
 of the Stony Mountains. The British Plenipotentiaries staled,' that 
 the last proposal having come from Great Britain, and being one of 
 those which, at the close of the negotiation of 1924, had been refer- 
 red to Wasliington, they now expected our ans^i|r to that proposal, 
 and that, if not acceded to, I would JfO^ke any new one I might be au- 
 thorized to offer. I answered, that, without reference to any point of 
 form, 1 was prepared to say, that my Government could not agree to 
 the boundary line proposed by Great Britain ; but that, whilst insist- 
 ing on the 49th parallel of latitude, I was authorized to modify Mr. 
 Rush's proposal, by the addition of a condition calculated to remove 
 the most important objection of Great Britain to the line we had pro-^, 
 posed ; and I accordingly offered the article, of which a copy is en<> 
 closed, and which has been taken foj^ consideration till our next meet- 
 ing. Tltis, on account of the opening of Parliament, has been appoint- 
 ed for the 22d instant 
 
 I had but little to add to the arguments used by Mr. Rush, in sup- 
 port of the right of the United States to the territory in question. Mr, 
 Baylies' report supplied me with additional arguments in opposition 
 to the pretended discoveries of Admiral Drake north of 40* or 4£* of 
 north latitude. I pointed out the discovery of Gray's Harbor, nojt^ 
 improperly called '* Whitbj's," north of the Columbia River, oy Cap- 
 tain Gray, referred to the line established in pursuance of tlie treaty of 
 Utrecht, and niade a short recapitulation of the whole. ^ But what it 
 imports you most to know, is the ground on which, as far as I could 
 understand it, Great Britain founds her jtrctcnsions. 
 
 As relates to discoveries, they refer to Meeres' anil Dixon's voy- 
 ages, to prove that the prior right, as respects the Straits of Fuca 
 and Gulf of Georgia, is incoutcstibly theirs, several English vessels 
 
[Doc. No. 199.J 
 
 i» 
 
 liaving entered them befora Captain Gray did ; and they also attempt 
 to lessen his discoveries of Gray's Harbor, and of the mouth of the 
 Columj>ia river, by saying, that Captain Meeres had previously diii- 
 covered and named Cape Shoal water, so'Hh of Gray's Harbor, Ca|)e 
 Disappointment, the northern entrancfir of Columbia river, and De- 
 ception Bay, which was, in fact, just^dutside of the said entrance. I 
 state the facts as the British Plenipotentiaries gave them, not having 
 had time to verify them. The inference which I understood them to 
 draw was, that, so far as the United States and British discoveries 
 could constitute a title, we could establish none along the sea coast* 
 north of the mouth of the Columbia-^the whole coast having, without 
 reference to Drake's or Cook's voyages, been explored by British 
 navigators, from that river northwardly, prior to the date of any 
 American discovery. 
 
 But the general ground / ~sumed by the British Plenipotentiaries 
 is, that the mere discovery, without occupancy, constitutes no title. 
 They insist that the, United States have not any right to the sovereign- 
 ty of any part of the country ; and I understood that they disclaimed 
 any on the part of Great Britain; although, from the genei-al tenor 
 of their argument, I should infer, that they intend ultimately to claim 
 such right of sovereignty, with I'espectto the settlements of their sub-^* 
 jects, made prior to the convention of 1 8 1 8. ' ^^ 
 
 The whole of this doctrine, which excludes titles derived from prior 
 discovery, and substitutes occupancy^ rests on the Nootka convention 
 of 20tb October, 1790, betweeif^ Spain and Great Britain. By the 
 third article of thaf'VKstrument, it was agreed, « that the respective 
 subjects of the two parties shouliPliot be disturbed or molested, either 
 in navigating or carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, or 
 in the South Seas, or in lanuing on the' coasts of those seas,, in p/oces 
 Twt already occupied^ for the purpose of carrying on their commerce 
 with the natives of the country, or of making settlements there. " This 
 agreement is made subject to certain restrictions and provisions, .the 
 only one of which applicable to the preseiit discussion is, that, <<as 
 well in the places which are to be restored to the British subjects, 
 (Nootka Sound) as in all other parts of the northwestern coasts of 
 iNorth America, or of the islands adjacent, situate to the north of the 
 parts of the said coast already occupied by Spain*; wherever the sub- 
 jects of either of the two Powers shall have made settlements since tlie 
 month of April, 1789, or shall hereafter make any, the subjects of 
 the other shall have free access, and shall carry on their trade, with- 
 out disturbance or molestation.*' From these provisions, the British 
 F)lnii)ot#itiaries draw the following inferences : 
 
 1. ThiB United States cannot claim, under their treaty with Spain/ 
 any greater right than Spain then had : and, as the Nootka conven- 
 tkih has no reference to the discoveries of either paHyj and Is unlimit- 
 ed in its duration, they cannot resort to any Spanish discovery in 
 support of their presumed title to any parts of the country. 
 
 2. As, at the time of concluding the Nootka convention, Louisiana 
 did belong to Spain, and she made no excepition to the provisions of 
 
 

 ! I 
 
 IH^I! I 
 
 ' I 
 
 n 
 
 !^ ■ ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 • - - 
 
 ilh i 
 
 16 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 that Gonvention, on account of any presumed boundaries of that pror 
 vince having been established by former treaties with Great Britain, 
 or of right extending to the Pacific, the United States cannot claim 
 any Territory on that ocean, as owners of Louisiana^ either as a natu- 
 ral extension of its boimdaries westwardly, or as implied from the de- 
 signation of the boifndary line, (the 49th parallel of latitude) settled 
 between Canada and Louisiana, on the one part, and the British pos- 
 sessions of Hudson's Bay, on the other part, by the commissioners 
 appointed in pursuance of the treaty of Utredht. 
 
 3. This convention (the Nootka) must be considered, generally, 
 as having become an internatiortal law, at least for the Pacific, su- 
 perseded the claims ascribed to mere prior discovery, set aside the 
 exclusive pretensions of Spain to the northwest part of the American 
 continent, and opened it to the commerce and settlements of all coun- 
 tries whatever, including the United States. 
 
 4. Actual occupancy, and regard to mutual convenience, are, there- 
 fore, tlie only basis of any arrangement for the establishment of a 
 boundary for the partition, between the only Powers having' settle- 
 ments or laying claims thereto, of a country which was^ heretofore, 
 held in common. 
 
 As .neither Meere*s discoveries, nor the Nootka convention, had 
 been mentioned in the negotiation of 1815, as that convention appear- 
 .ed to have been only diuded to in that of 1818 ; and as, in this last, 
 'the objection to the right derived from discoveries was not general, 
 but applied only to the circumstance of those of the United States, 
 having been made by private vesselsu much of tile -argument was new 
 to me. From some expressions in your instructions, Lam led to infer 
 that, at all events, it is, for the first time, brought forth in so distinct 
 ~a shape, and have thought it important to lay it before you. It is my 
 intention to invite the British Plenipotentiaries to commit it to writing, 
 at least in an informal manner. The grounds which I took in an- 
 swer, and on which I intend to enlarge at the next conference, will be 
 communicated ^he:^eaftcr. There are, indeed, several facts, which 
 must be previously Investigated. 
 
 Mr. Huskisson, amongst the reasons for taking iipthat subject first, 
 mentioned, that it had, for several sessions, occupied the attention of 
 Congress, and that it was not possible to foi^see the effect which the 
 measures they might adopt would have on the question, and on the 
 frien^y relations of the two countries. In a subsequent part of the 
 conversation, he said that the joint occupancy would cease in 1828, 
 unless renewed, and the removal by the United States of any setUe- 
 nient mad6 by British subjects, would be considered as an act oH^- 
 Agression. This having already been intimated, ii: the course of the 
 negutiatioi) of 18^^, I asked whether bewould consider as an a£t of 
 aggression, the removal of such British subjects from Astoria, 6|B|lch 
 other of our settlements as were directed to be restqtred by the treaty 
 T)f Ghent. To which it was answered, that those were considered as 
 in our possession ; and Mr. Addington added, that the British had re- 
 moved from Astoria to the opposite side of the river, where, I under- 
 stood, iSkey had now a fort called " Vancouver.*' 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 <t 
 
 ^v- Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Clay. — No. 29. c • • 
 
 London, 25f A JVor. 18£6. 
 Hon. Henrt CiAY, -,,, j^i 
 
 Secretary of State-f Washington, 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to enclose a copy of the protocol of the first 
 conference with the British Plenipotentiaries. They considered the re- 
 fusal of Mr. Rush, at the 20th conference of 1824, to accede to their 
 verbal proposal of making the Columbia river the boundary, as owing 
 to his not being authorized by his instructions to agree to it, and the ar- 
 ticle which they had, at the 23d conference, given in writing, as one 
 of the subjects referred to Washington, according to the 25th confer- 
 ence. As I was ready both to reject their article and to offer the new 
 one, it appeared of no importance in what form this was done. Be- 
 fore this article A was attached to the protocol, X struck out the words 
 northwesternmostf as descriptive of McGillivrey's river, as they ap- 
 peared as inapplicable as those northeasternmosty used in the article 
 P, proposed, in 1824, by the British Plenipotentiaries. This alteration 
 must, therefore, be made in the copy of the article already forwarded. 
 
 At our second conference, of the 22d instant, tlie British Plenipo- 
 tentiaries said that they had referred to their Government the article 
 offered by me, and that they were not yet prepared to give an answer. 
 A general desultory conversation ensued on the subject, in the course 
 of which nearly all the grounds assumed, and objections raised on both 
 sides, were brought forward, but not thorouglily discussed. I have al- 
 ready given the outlines of the arguments of the British Plenipotien- 
 tiaries, and will now state mine. 
 
 1 . The United Slater claimed a natural extension of tlieir territory 
 to the Pacific Ocean, on the ground of contiguity and population, which 
 gave them a better right to the adjacent unoccupied land, than could be 
 set up by any other nation. Tliis was strcngtiiened by the jloctrine 
 admitted to its fullest extent by Great Britain, as appeared by all her 
 charters, extending tVom the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, to colonies 
 established then only on the borders of the Atlantic. How much more 
 natural and stronger the claim, when made by a nation whose popula- 
 tion extended to the central parts of the Continent, and whose domi- 
 nions were by all acknowledged to extend to the Stony Mountains ? 
 If the principle assumed by Great Britaifj from 1580 to 1732, as relat- 
 ed to Atlantic Colonies, was correct, she could not deny its applica- 
 tion to the United States, now owners of Louisiana. The boundary 
 line agreed on by the Commissionci-s appointed in pursuance of the 
 treaty of Utrecht, (the 49th p:\i'allel of latitude,) though falling short 
 of what might be claimed by the United States on other grounds, was 
 offered by them, and must, at all events, be binding on Great Britain. 
 That line was indefiiiitc ; it had already been confirmed to the Stony 
 Mountains ; there was no reason wiiy it sliould not be continued as far 
 as the claims of both parties extended. In point of fact, the occupan- 
 cy, cm which Great IJritain principally relied, was solely owing to 
 that wcstwardly extension of their trading settlements of Uudson'a 
 hay and its waters. 
 
 •■ 8 .. ■ ;-, j-n 
 
i 
 
 . t) 
 
 Hi 
 
 i» 
 
 \ 
 
 K - [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 
 S. fn right of their own dlocoverios, viz : the mouth of Cdum- 
 bia river by Gapt. Gray, and the complete exploration of the rivet*, 
 from its most westerly sources to its mouth, before any of its branches 
 had been explored by the British, the United States had a right to 
 claim against Great Britain, and every other nation, the ^hole territo- 
 ry drained by that river and its various branches, together with a cer- 
 tain portion of the coast north and south of the mouth of the river. 
 In tins, also, we were supported by the established usage amongst na- 
 tionsy and adopted by Great Britain in various instances, (and amongst 
 others, in her charter to the Hudson Bay Company, which charter ex- 
 tends to all the territory watei*ed by the rivera emptying into the bay.) 
 
 3. By virtue of their treaty with Spain, the United States claimed 
 all which Spain might have lawfully claimed nortji of 42 degrees of 
 latitude, either as derived from Spanish discoveries, or by virtue of 
 rights of sovereignty acknowledged by other nations, and by Great 
 Britain particularly. On the last subject, I did not dwell, having not 
 yet sufficiently investigated the articles of the treaty of Utracht, 
 which may affect that question. Ah to discoveries, I ga;^9 to the Bri- 
 tish Pletiipotentiai'ieH a copy of the same extract from the official 
 Spanish account published in 1802, which I had transmitted from Vm\^ 
 to the Department of State, in the despatch No. 2j35, dated 26th Sep- 
 tember, 1831. That Spanish work, which 1 could then only borrow, 
 I have now found here and purchased. It was not merely, I said, by 
 examining each of those grounds separately, that the claim of the Unit- 
 ed States could be justly ajipreciated. To each of them, taken by it- 
 self, objections might be made, tending to show that it did not consti- 
 tute a complete right of sovereignty. Considered together, and sup- 
 porting each other as they did, they appealed to us to establish our 
 claim on the most solid foundation. But our never having refused to 
 agree to a line of demarcation with Great Britain, was a sufficient 
 proof that we admitted that she also had claims which deserved, and 
 to which we paid due consideration. It was on that account that the 
 United States had reduced the extent of their own to the boundary 
 line they had offered, and had added to it the proposal of allowing to 
 British subjects the free navigation of the Columbia river^ Claiming 
 themselves, by right of discovery and settlement, they allQwed what 
 was due to Great Britain on the same account, and all that she could 
 justly claim under the Nootka Convention, according to its true con- 
 struction. But they could not admit her pretensions to the extent now 
 set up, or as impairing their claim within the boundary (at least) of- 
 fered by them. 
 
 In the first place, the Nootka Convention, on which so much reli- 
 ance was put, was a compact «nly between Spain and Great Britain. 
 Whatever construction was given to that instrMmcjit, it could affect the 
 United States so far only, as they claimed under the Spanish title. 
 Their claim, in their own I'ight, and as derived from their own dis- 
 cttvei'ies and subswiuent settlement, could not, in the slightest degree, 
 be affected by that compact. 
 
 But what was the true intent and meaning of the Nootka Conven- 
 
 » ^ 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 19 
 
 (a CoiivfH- 
 
 tioR . Though not limited in its duration by any express stipulatiois 
 it was necessarily so from its nature. Though the settlements which 
 might be made by either party were not expressly qualified or restrict- 
 edf it was evident that the sole object of the Convention was com- 
 merce, and commerce with the natives ; and that it was for that, and 
 for that object alone, that the country was left open to the subjects of 
 the two contracting Powers. That the object of the Convention was 
 itot to settle the territorial claims of the parties ; that it has no con- 
 nexion with ^n ultimate partition of the country, or with its coloniza- 
 tion for permanent purposes — was evident from the provisions of that 
 instrument. It permitted promiscuous and intermixed settlements ev- 
 ery where on the coast, to the subjects of both parties, and it even made 
 every such settlement, made by either party, common to the other. 
 This clearly excluded any possibility of distinct jurisdiction, territo- 
 rial rights, or sovereignty. In all these respects, the Convention left 
 the parties where it found them, and in possession of all such rights, 
 either of discovery, or others, as might aifect those questions, when^- 
 ever that of permanent and separate possession came to be discussed 
 and finally settled by the contracting Powers. 
 
 Supposing, even for the sake of argument, tliatthe Convention was 
 susceptible of the construction now put on it by Great Britain, was it 
 now any longer in force ? The war between her and Spain, which had 
 been terminated by the treaty of 1809, had intervened. The Ireaties 
 of commerce between the two countries had been renewed by the 
 treaty of July, 1814. So far as the Nootka Convention was of a com- 
 mercial nature, and the United States considered it as exclusively of 
 that character, it was still in force. But, if its stipulations were« as 
 contended for by Great Britain, of a dilfekent nature, the question 
 would arise whether they were such as to be, according to the doctrine 
 held by her on that subject, still binding, or whether they had been 
 abrogated by the war ? 
 
 To this exposition of the Nootka Convention, the British Plenipo- 
 tentiaries did not agree. They considered its principles and provi- 
 sions as permanent,^and not abrogated by war; as only declaratory of 
 what was already previously the natural law ; as having established 
 this, and made it, in an incontrovertible manner, the international law 
 on that subject. Those vague claims of ancient discoveries, and of 
 distant settlements, on which Spain had founded hers to the exclusive 
 sovereignty of the whole western coast of America, had been set at 
 rest by that Convention. In order to resist that claim, Great Britain 
 had, in 1790, been willing to run the risk of a war. Not for her ben- 
 efit only, but for that of all nations, she had contended for and esta- 
 blished that principle of natural law, by which vacant land belongato 
 the first occupant. Under this, she did not claim exclusive rights of 
 sovereignty ; she only denied ours. In making a final arrangement 
 with the United States, she considered the whole country as still open 
 equally to both parties, and to be divided as such, and onthatprinci* 
 pie. Of this we had no right to complain, since she might plead claims 
 derived from occupancy or discoveries to a much greater extent than 
 ourselves. ';^ •• ■• ' • • « ■■ • -^^^ ;- ■' 'u-i,--- >;-j=ijYn"^i , 
 
 Um 
 
i!li 
 
 
 I' I "il 
 
 'l! 
 
 ,1 
 
 IP 
 
 !l 
 
 HI 
 
 ill 
 
 20 
 
 .» > • 
 
 ^S'-k 
 
 : I 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 I observed that this argument was less luunded on the positive stip- 
 ulations of the Nootka Cuiivuntion, tlian on a recurrence to antecedent 
 presumed principles of natural law. But the answer was the same in 
 either case. As an abstract principle, that of first occupancy being the 
 foundation of property and sovereignty between individuals and na- 
 tions respectively, might bo admitted. But it was not sufficient alone 
 to preserve peace amongst them. The impossibility of reconciling 
 the general right of promiscuous and intermixed settlement by diflTer- 
 ent nations, with any correct notion of tranquil possession and distinct 
 jurisdiction, had already been mentioned. It was on that account, in 
 order to prevent otherwise unavoidable collision, for the purpose of 
 assigning to each nation a distinct portion of vacant territory, that the 
 right of prior discover^?, that of contiguity to territory already occu- 
 pied, that of extending tlio claim of a nation possessing the mouth of 
 a river to the whole of its waters, if not previously occupied by others, 
 had been recognized by nations in general, and enforced by Great 
 Britain hei-self. As the arguments brought forward by each party on 
 this subject were unsatisfactory to the other, we may bo considered as 
 at issue on that question. 
 
 I observed, as related to the settlements of the British in that quar- 
 ter: 1st, That those made subsequent to the Convention of 1818, added 
 nothing to the claims of thp British — the rights of the parties having 
 been expressly reserved by that Convention, which allowed of a joint 
 occupancy. 2dly, That none certainly existed on the Columbia even 
 so late as at the time when that river was explored by Lewis and 
 Clarke ; and that there were none to our knowledge south of the 49th 
 degree of latitude, when our settlement of Astoria was commenced. 
 3dly, That those British settlements were factories for commercial 
 purposes, which gave no more permanent territorial rights than sim- 
 ilar establishments made in a civilized country. No notice has as yet 
 been taken of that observation. Some allusion was made to Indian 
 purchases, on which I do not tliink that any reliance is placed. 
 
 The dates and nature of the respective discoveries, south of the 49th 
 degree, underwent some discussion. In reply to the attempt made to 
 lessen the merit of Captain Gray's discovery of the Columbia river, I 
 said that the fact of the coast extending from 42° to 50° being once 
 known, (as it had been ascertained,by Cook, and several Spanish navi- 
 gators — Perez, Maurclle, Martinez, Quadra, &c.) the sole object of dis- 
 covery, for subsequent navigators, was the entrance of straits, or of a 
 large river communicating with the interior of the country. It was 
 what Meeres sought, and what he faiUd in, as had been the case with 
 Maurelle and others of his predecessors, and as was also the case with 
 Vancouver, who had in his journal recorded the fact. Meeres had given 
 names indicative of his total failure — Cape Disappointment and Decep- 
 tion Bay. Under date of 28th April, lV92, Vancouver states from 42* 
 to 48° there was no large river — nothing but small brooks. On the next 
 day, he met Capt. Gray, of the Columbia, who informed him that he had 
 discovered the mouth of a large river, into which the winds and cur- 
 rents had prevented him to enter. Persevering in his effort, Gray re- 
 
[Doc. No. 199.1 21 
 
 - • 'fat'.. .-;;V vj 
 
 turns Houthwardly, and, on the 1 Itii May fuUowing, untera the river, 
 and ascends it about 25 miles. On his return, he met again Vancou- 
 ver, at Nootka, and, with that information, he (Vancouver) sent one of 
 his lieutenants to survey the river. This duty was performed in Oc- 
 tober following by that olHcer, who ascended the river about 20 miles 
 higher up than Gray. It was impossible to deny, with those facts, 
 that the discovery was Gray's, and exclusively his own. The only 
 other harbor on that coast, south of Fucu^s straits, >yas alsoiliscover6d 
 by Gray, and bears his name in Vancouver's map, though since chang- 
 ed into Whitby's, by subsequent English map-makers, whom our own 
 have copied witli great servility. And here permit me to observe, 
 that I cannot see the policy of substituting the fabulous name of Oregon 
 to that of Columbia, which was that of Gray's ship, and perpetuates 
 his discovery. 
 
 The next most important discovery, and most intimately connected 
 with the present controversy, is tliAt of the Straits of Fuca. We can- 
 not draw any argument in our favor from the supposed ancient disco- 
 very, (in 1592) by a man of that name, said to have been in the Span- 
 ish service. The whole story rests on the foundation of an English- 
 man named Locke, who is said to have met at Venice that Fuca, a 
 Greek from Ccphalonia, who gave him verbally that relation, which 
 has been printed in ancient English collections. — (Purches, &c.) Not 
 only the greater part of that relation is certainly fabulous, for it states 
 that, in 3U days, he reached, by sea, Hudson's bay; but the Spanish ac- 
 count disclaims any knowledgeeither of Fuca, or of any such voyage, 
 although it gives a short abstract of other voyages made in 1592 and 
 1603, by Vizcairo, who did not reach further than Cape Mendocino, 
 and about 43* of north latitude. The facts well ascertained, are as 
 followeth : 
 
 In 1778, Capt. Cook discovered Caiie Flattery, the southern en- 
 trance of the straits, which he did not perceive. 
 
 In 1787, Captain Duncan, in the British ship Princess Royal, en- 
 tered the Straits, and traded at the village of Classrt, on the south- 
 ern shore, and within two miles of the entrance. 
 
 In July, of the same year. Captain Meeres, in the Fellice, anchor-^ 
 ed at Barclay, in Barclay's Sound, and like him, sent his boat in the 
 Straits, which he ascended about 30 miles, (not leagues as he says.) 
 
 In the same year, date unknown, but it is said subsequent to Meeres, 
 the same Captain Gray, then commanding the Washington, entered 
 the Straits with his vessel, and penetrated 50 miles up. He went in 
 and traded with the natives several times afterwards. It must be ob- 
 served that, respecting the mouth of the Columbia river, wc know no- 
 thing of Gray's discoveries, but thrpugh British accounts. By those 
 it appears, that he had also made some between 54° and 56" of north 
 latitude. 
 
 In June, 1790, Capt. Quimpcr, of the Spanish navy, explored the 
 Straits as far as Poiy.t Quadra — (Vancouver's Port of Discovery.) 
 
 In May, June, .and July, 1791, Capt. Eliza, of the Spanish pack- 
 et San Carlos, explored the Straits as far as the channel of San Ko- 
 sario, between 49* and 50° of north latitude. 
 
ili 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 %2 
 
 [Hoc. No. 199.] 
 
 )i>i 
 
 In Mayt \792f Vancouver entered the Straits, and completed tlie 
 exploration, partly in company with the Spanish vessels 8utU and 
 JVexicano, with whom he re-entered the Ocean by the northern en- 
 trance of the Straits, and from whom he learned, with mortiflcation, 
 that one half had already been explored in the preceding years, by 
 Quimper and Eliza. 
 
 You will perceive that all this makes a complex case. To the first 
 discovery, made by Barclay, I have objected, that it was not properly 
 an English one, as, in order to avoid the mono|K)ly of the South Sea 
 Company, his ship, though English property, was fitted at Ostend, 
 and must, it is presumed, have sailed under the Austrian flag. 
 
 There was, in the course of the conversation, more susceptibility 
 shown by the British Plenipotentiaries, than was called fur by my ob- 
 servations. That the United States had no right to dispossess a sin- 
 gle British subject, or in any way to exercise jurisdiction in any part 
 of the territory in question, was again repeated, saying, however, that 
 they claimed no such right on their side. I said that i thought it fair 
 to state, that, although the United States would avoid any act tending 
 to produce collision, yet, as from local position, the British traders 
 were daily making new settlements, my Government would also take 
 possession, and that they could not do it otherwise than by establish- 
 ing military posts. This did not seem to me to appear objectionable, 
 at least no objection was made to it. On the subject of jurisdiction, 
 we must, if we do not agr^e to a boundary line, como to some under- 
 standing. ■»• »'. ■ ' .• ' 
 
 The latter part of our conversation was of a more conciliatory na- 
 ture. Mr. Huskisson said, that it would be lamentable, that, in this 
 age, two such nations as the United States and Great Britain, should 
 be drawn to a rupture on such a subject as the uncultivated wilds of 
 the Northwest Coast. But the honor and dignity of both countries 
 must be respected, and the mutual convenience of both parties should 
 also be consulted. He then objected to the straight line which we pro- 
 posed, as having no regard to such convenience, and observed particu- 
 larly, that its cutting off the southern portion of Quadra and Vancou- 
 ver's Island, (that on which Nootka Sound was situated) was quite 
 inadmissible. I told him that, taking only convenience into considera- 
 tion, their proposal was far more objectionable. The survey of the 
 Columbia River, which was on the table, had the soundings marked, 
 from which it appeared, that, with the exception of a small harbor, of 
 vei'y little depth, the channel was for 15 or 20 miles exclusively close 
 to the northern shore, so as to give to the British the whole command 
 of the entrance and navigation of the river, if this had been made the 
 boundary. I added, that, from the 42d parallel of latitude, to Fuca's 
 Straits, thei'e was not a single port of any consequence but the mouth 
 of Columbia River ; and that, on account of the breakers and bar, was 
 of difficult access, and fitted only for commercial purposes. By allow- 
 ing the free navigation of the river to the British, we gave them all 
 the^ advantages attached to that port. On the other hand, from Fuca*s 
 Straits, inclusively, to the Russian boundary line, the coast abounded 
 with ports of any depth, and fitted for naval stations. To agree to a 
 
iitJ 
 
 Xt 
 
 • i'^ »\> r ,•^■9 
 
 [Doc. No. 199. J 
 
 aa 
 
 II uV) liL 
 
 line Uiat would leave uU ol these to them, would be glvinat them the 
 exclusive naval command of the coast. It was impossible that wo 
 would agree to this ; and we could have a share in that respect only, 
 by a boundary line, that would give ua a portion of the Straits. 
 
 Writing this letter in gr-eat liaste. and not having time to correct, 
 I may not have stated the arguments as clearly and forcibly as might 
 have been done. 
 
 The British Plenipotentiaries insisted, that, according to the law 
 of nations, as acknowledged by all, discovery without settlement gave 
 no title, and that, in the ancient British charters, places already occu- 
 pied by other civilized nations had always been excepted. 
 
 Whether there is a disposition to come to a reasonable agreement, 
 is yet doubtful. If such disposition docs exist, there will still be two 
 difficulties. I think that the first, their insisting on a more conve- 
 nient and natural line than the 49th parallel of latitude, may be obvi- 
 ated by their adhering to that line only as a basis ; that is to say, by 
 insisting on an equivalent north of the line, in compensation of what, 
 for convenience sake, we may yield south of it. 
 
 The other difficulty relates to the restriction on the right of navi- 
 gating the Columbia, by the insertion of the words ** if found naviga- 
 ble,*' kc. The British will say they arc useless, since the right can- 
 not be enjoyed if the river is not navigable, and that they cuA there- 
 fore be used only to call their right in question, even though the river 
 was navigable. But what is meant by « navigable ?" It is well 
 known that the navigation of the main Columbia river is interrupted 
 by great falls, around which boats are generally, if not always, 
 carried by land. As it was certain that the offi r made by the Go- 
 vernment of the United States, was not intended as nugatory, I took 
 care to frame the article so that those falls should not ue enclosed in 
 the restriction. But there may be, for aught we know, falls and 
 rapids in the branches of the Columbia, below the 49th degree, such 
 as to render them not navigable for common boats. The whole navi- 
 gation of the rivers of that country, above tide- water, except per- 
 haps on the main river, is carried on by the British traders in bark 
 canoes, to which such falls and rapids are a difficulty, but not an im- 
 pediment, ^'oni Lake Superior to the Pacific, the intercourse is 
 carried on in ithose canoes, which are carried around the portages. It 
 is, indeed, to that mode of conveyance, that the British are exclu- 
 sively indebted for the extension of their commerce to the Western 
 i^a. They have all that is necessary for it — the species of birch 
 Nvhich does not grow in more southern latitudes, and Canadians for 
 canoe-men. Tliey will, therefore, object to any restrictive words, 
 that might impede what is the ordinary navigation of the country. 
 
 I have the honor to be, &c. 
 , ALBERT GALLATIN. 
 
 ^'. 
 
 27th. — Mr. Uuskibuunhas requested that uur next conference, 
 which had been fixed for Tuesday, should be ])Ostponed to Friday, Ist 
 i)«cenibcr. 
 
I • 
 
 d4 
 
 . !■!, 
 
 -"J !! 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 i^ 'il 
 
 if 
 
 
 1; i;.' 
 
 m 
 
 I i 
 
 fi".' 
 
 [Doc. No. 190.] 
 
 J/r. Gallatin to J\Ir. Clay. — JVo. 31. 
 
 London, Qd December, 1826, 
 
 Hon. Hbnry Clay, v * - ... ." ^ 
 
 Secretary of Slate, Washington. 
 
 Sir : There is no prospect of an agreement with the British Gov- 
 ernment, on the subject of a boundary line west of the Stony Moun- 
 tains. 
 
 Our third conference took place yesterday. I opened it by some 
 further observations on the true meaning and effect of the Nootka ^on- 
 .vention. Considered, which it really is, as purely of a commercial 
 nature, it was still in force and binding upon the United States, so far 
 as they claimed in right of Spain. If, as seemed to be contended by 
 Great Britain, its stipulations extended beyond a commercial arrange- 
 ment, the question would arise, whether, since they had not been re- 
 newed, they were abrogated by war. This 1 was not prepared, and 
 indeed did not think it necessary, to discuss. That the Convention 
 had no other object but to recognise a freedom of commerce with the 
 natives, was evident, both from its tenor and from the incident out of 
 which it had grown. It was conced<\l, that the promiscuous settle- 
 ments, common to both parties, which might be made in conformity 
 with that instrument, were incompatible with any notion of distinct 
 jurisdiction and of sovereignty ; that a division line, a partition of the 
 country, could not take place but by virtue of a new agreement. It 
 necessarily followed, that the Convention had stipulated nothing in 
 that respect, and that, whenever such agreement came under considera- 
 tion, the parties might claim all that, according to the law and usages 
 of nations, they had a right to claim, in the same manner as if the 
 Convention had not taken place. To that law and usages, as not hav- 
 ing in any manner been abrogated by the Convention, the United 
 States did appeal, both in their own right and in the right of Spain. 
 Whatever might be claimed, either as a natural extension of Louisiana, 
 or under the arrangement made in pursuance of the treaty of Utrecht, 
 or by virtue of the f-rst discoveries of Spain, the United States had 
 now as much right to claim as what they considered theirs by virtue 
 of their own discoveries. These arguments were neither admitted 
 nor refuted by the British Plenipotentiaries. 
 
 They spoke in general terms of the right of Great Britain to make 
 settlements any wliere nortii of the 38tl» parallel of latitude, and to 
 the navigatimi of all the rivers emptying into the Pacific, north of that 
 latitude. And they took occasion to animadvert on the condition upon 
 whicli, by the article 1 had ])ropose(l, the right to navigate the Colum- 
 hia was made to depend : a ( ondition which would he inadmissible, 
 even if thev were to receive the pi'iviiegc as a grant, instead of its 
 being a right already belonging to Great Britain. 
 
 In answer to that special objection, I said, that, if the right to navi- 
 gate the river, contcm|)Iuted by the article, had been confined to tlie 
 navigation from the 49th degree of latitude to tide water, the condi- 
 tion wouM have been unnecessary, since the British actually navigat- 
 ing the risei', would have been a complete protif that it was navigable. 
 
[Doc. No. liW.] 
 
 3S 
 
 But it was contemplated by the article, that they should have also 
 tlie free navigation of the river from and to the sea. This was in- 
 tended for the special and sole purpose of giving tliem an uninter- 
 rupted water communication between the upper branches of the river, 
 north of the 49th parallel of latitude, and the sea. If the condition 
 complained of was omitted, they would have an absolute right (and 
 without any reciprocity within the British territories) to navigate the 
 river in ships from tide water to the sea, and vice versa, although its 
 upper branches, from the 49th degred downwards, should not be navi- 
 gable, and the water communication above stated should not exist.- 
 It was not the intention of the United States that they should have 
 that right in titat case ; and, therefore, the condition was annexed. If 
 the expressions used in the article were susceptibh of doubt, or liable 
 to any well-founded objection, a different phraseology, consistent with 
 the avowed object of the article, might be adopted. Although I an- 
 ticipated, from the manner in which the subject was introduced, that 
 this explanation would produce no effect, 1 deemed it necessary, in 
 order to shr>w how far the offer went, and that it was perfectly fair. ; 
 
 Mr. Huskisson then asked mu, whether I was authorized to deviate- 
 from the 49th parallel of latitude as a boundary ? I did not think that 
 he had any right to ask the question ; but at it was only from courte- 
 sy, and to avoid, at the opening of the negotiation, expressions at all 
 savoring of harshness, that I had used the words << whilst insisting on 
 the 49th degree,'' instead of the word *< ultimatum," and, as in fact 
 the United States had nothing to conceal, I answered the question : 
 To the 49th parallel of latitude the United States would adhere as a ' 
 basis. If, on account of the geographical features of the country, a ' 
 deviation founded on mutual convenience was found expedient, a pro- 
 posal to that effect might be entertained, provided it was consistent ' 
 with that basis : that is to say, that any deviation in one place to the 
 south of the 49th parallel, should be comperisated by an equivalent in 
 another place to the north of that parallel. * * * * 
 I added, that if, as I presumed from the question, the British Plenipo- 
 tentiaries intended to make a new proimsal, it was only after it was 
 made that I could give a more specific answer, either accept it, refer 
 it to my Goviernment, or reject it at once. > 
 
 After .1 short consultation between the British Plenipotentiaries, > 
 Mr. Huskisson said, that, when speaking of the line without reference 
 to right, but only to convenience, I had observed that the boundary 
 proposed by Great Britain, left to the United States but one seaport, 
 and that of difliculi access, and fitted' only for commercial purposes ; 
 and that, thinking that remark entitled to consideration, the British 
 Government was disposed to offer us a port in Fuca*s Straits. Taking 
 then Vancouver's map, he p<>irited out the line traced in the enclosed 
 sketch, ofTcring to the United States the detached territory, bounded 
 on the west by the ocean, on the north by Fuca's Straits, on the east 
 by the entrance of Admiralty Inlet, and then by the Peninsula be- : 
 twecn that and Hood's Inlct^ and on the south by a line, drawn , thence 
 to Gray's Hatbor, w\ Ihe orean. And he dwelt dn the cxceltipnce of 
 
t'\ 
 
 ■ll 
 
 *'! 
 
 !; 
 
 S6 
 
 [Doc. No. 190.J 
 
 Port Discovery^ defended by Protection Island, wliicli would thus Be 
 secured to us. On my asking how he meant that the line should run 
 in other respects, he answered that, with that exception, the British 
 Government adhered to the boundary proposed in 1824, viz : the Co- 
 lumbia river ; although it might, perhaps, be agreed that the northern 
 shore, for some distance from the mouth of tl\e river, should remain 
 unoccupied by both parties. I said that this pl'oposal did not admit 
 even of discussion, as to its details, as the principle was inadmissible ; 
 that I rejected it at once, and would think it inconsistent with my in- 
 structions even to take it for reference to my Government. 
 
 The British Plenipotentiaries said, that, since it was evident that we 
 could not agree to a boundary line, nothing remained but to continue 
 the joint occupancy for another period of time. To this course I ex- 
 pressed my assent, and some general conversation ensued on the dan- 
 gers arising from collisions between the traders or settlers of the two 
 countries, or from acts of either Government assuming exclusive ju- 
 risdiction. 1 undei*stood it to be the opinion of the British Plenipo- 
 tentiaries, that there could be no objection to the establishment of 
 military posts, or to a jurisdiction confined by each Power to his own 
 citizens or subjects ; and that any outrages committed by eitlier such 
 citizens or subjects on the subjects or citizens of tlie other nation, ought 
 not to be considered as national acts of aggression, unless authorized 
 by Government. They alluded to the attempt of the establishment of 
 a Territorial Government which had been made in Congress, as con- 
 trary to the spirit of the existing agi*eement ; although they declared 
 that, if they established a colony any where, they must give it some 
 form of Government. And they spoke of the necessity of modifying 
 the article heretofore agreed on, and still in force, on the subject of that 
 joint occupancy. It was concluded that they should prepare an article 
 in conformity with their own view of the subject, which, if insisted 
 upon, and substantially differing from the present one, must of course 
 be referred to the President's decision. I think that it would be more 
 eligible to continue simply the present article, leaving it to each 
 Government to make, through the usual channels, such communica- 
 tions to the other as it may deem proper, on what would be consist- 
 ent with, or infringing the agreement. But I can say nothing positive, 
 until 1 have seen the article they mean to propose. 
 
 I have the honor, &c. ' ' 
 
 ALB£RT GALLATIN. 
 
 ■■«* 
 
 \i 
 
 [extract.] 
 
 Mr, Oallatin to Mr, Clay, 
 
 London, Sth Decemhery 1826. 
 «< Sir : I enclose the draft* of the Convention which the British Ple- 
 nipotentiaries propose on the subject of a continued joint occupancy of 
 
 * See this draft following the protocol of 6th conference. 
 
V" 
 
 LBoc. No. 199.3 
 
 37 
 
 the territory west of the Stony Mountains. Mr. Addington sent it 
 to me yesterday for inspection, prior to our conference, which takes 
 place to-morrow, and the result of which cannot reach you by this 
 packet. In returning it, I apprized, in a private note, Mr. Adding- 
 ton of the necessity under which I would be of referring the subject to 
 my Government, if it was deemed necessary by the British Plenipo- 
 tentiaries to insert new stipulations. I also gave him notice that I 
 would object to their second proposed article. 
 
 '* It must always be kept in mind that Great Britain insists that the 
 whole country west of the Stony Mountains is a vacant territory, to 
 W which no nation has any exclusive right, which is open to all, and to 
 '$ which a title may be acquired, and can only be acquired, by actual oc- 
 cupancy and settlement. The second article in question is intended, 
 not only to prevent the establishing of a Territorial Government by 
 the United States, but also to establish the general doctrine that no 
 exclusive sovereignty or dominion can be assumed or exercised over 
 any part of the country, in its present situation, and, l^y implication, 
 that a concurrent jurisdiction may be exercised sufficient to preserve 
 order among the traders. 
 
 " With a view to prevent another inference of the same nature, I in- 
 tend to propose that so much of the article now in force as relates t0 
 other foreign nations, should be struck out. In our view of the sub- 
 ject, that provision referred only to Spain and Russia, as the only na- 
 tions which, besides Great Britain and the United States, could possi- 
 bly have any^claim^to any part of the country ; and the claims of both 
 are now settled. According to the British doctrine, the article must 
 stand as it is, since they declare that every nation has an equal right 
 with ourselves to make settlements there. Still, as my instructions 
 contemplate a simple renewal of the article, I will not insist on that 
 amendment. For the same reason, and thinking it very difficult to 
 find any general stipulation to which botli parties would agree, be- 
 yond what is contained in the existing article, I will try to have it 
 done in that way, leaving any subsequent arrangement to depend on 
 Executive regulations. If it should be found impossible to renew the 
 article without some additional stipulation, none has presented itself 
 tolny mind better calculated to preserve peace, and to enable us to 
 acquire a good footing in the country, than the adoption of the second 
 proposed article, but limited to the country contained between the 
 forty-ninth parallel and the boundary insisted on by the British. This 
 would be more favorable to us than any temporary line (beyond which 
 settlements should not be made) to which the British would be likely 
 to agree. 
 
 « I apprehend some difficulty in settling the protocol of our last con- 
 ference. From the manner in which the offer of a detached Territory, 
 south of FucaVs Strait, was made, I anticipated that it was intended 
 as informal. I might have had it committed to writing, by pretend- 
 ing an intention to take it into consideration ; but this was so incon- 
 sistent with the spirit of my instructions, and the proposal was so ob- 
 viously inadmissable, that, as already stated, I declared that I could 
 
I, f 
 
 18 
 
 [Doc. No. 19d.] 
 
 not refer it to my Government. I, therefore, expected that it woul I 
 not be inserted in the protocol , but, in a draft of this sent to me, b >■ 
 the British Plenipotentiaries, they propose that it sfaould.be stated that 
 they had declined making any new proposal. I'o this I cannot assent, 
 as th«;re is a material difference between omitting to insert a fact, and 
 a positive assertion in the protocol that no such fact had taken place." 
 
 in .••■ 
 
 fh 
 
 !v 
 
 .V 
 
 |-' ' [extract.] 
 
 ( .• ^{ • Mr. Qallatin to Mr, Clay. 
 
 London, \Zth DecemhtTf l%2%, 
 
 <<SiR : We have had two conferences, (the 4th and 5th) on the 6th 
 and Uth ^nstant, respectively. The British Plenipotentiaries having 
 concluded to insert in the protocol of the third conference, the offer 
 they had made of a detached Territory south of B'uca's Straits, thaC 
 protocol, though agreed on yesterday, is not yet signed. Our fourth 
 conference was principally employed in a discussion of the manner in 
 which the joint occupancy mjist be understood. The aifticle informally 
 proposed, and of which 1 sent you a copy, has received some modifica- 
 tions originating with the British Plenipotentiaries ; and they would 
 have been ready to deliver it yesterday, but said they wished it to be 
 accompanied by an exposition of their claim, and view of the subject. 
 This they expect to be prepared to annex to the protocol of our next 
 conference, on the 16th instant, which will, I hope, enable me to send 
 you by the packet of the 24th, all the protocols, and whatever relates 
 to the Territory west of the Stony Mountains. You know already 
 that the negotiation for a permanent boundary, has terminated with- 
 out our being able to agree. The questions which will be referred for 
 the President's decision, relate, exclusively, to the joint occupancy ; 
 whether it shall be continued, and, if continued, whether any, and, if 
 any, what, explanatory or new provisions may be necessary. The 
 
 Proposals will come exclusively from the British Plenipotentiaries, as 
 declared that I was not authorized to make any. I suggested, in 
 the course of the conversation, as coining from myself, which was 
 true, whether each Power might not be allowed to exercise exclusive 
 sovereignty over a certain extent of Territory, leaving between them 
 a kind of border or debatable ground, where promiscuous settlements 
 might be continued until a permanent boundary was agreed on. But 
 the suggestion was not entertained by the British Plenipotentiaries." 
 
 * , ,,, '] J/r. QaUatin to J\ir. Clay, - - > - 
 
 ' r ' hovDoy, toth December, IQ&6. 
 
 Sir : The protocol of the first conference with the British Plenipo- 
 tentiaries, and the proposed article annexed to it, have been already 
 transmitted. I have now the honor to enclose the protocols of the six 
 
 Hi 
 
[Iloc. Ko. 199.] 
 
 A9 
 
 following conferences; theprojetof a Convention for the continuance 
 of the joint occupancy of the territory west of the Stony Mountain?* 
 presented by the British Plenipotentiaries, and annexed to the iitxtii 
 protocol; their statement of the claims and views of the British Go- 
 vernment annexed to the ^^une protocol, and my counter-statement 
 annexed to the seventh. 
 
 The negotiation for agreeing to a definite boundary line in that 
 quarter has, for the present, failed, and may be considei-ed as tjmni- 
 nated. What relates to it, is included in the first, second, third, and 
 seventh protocols, so much of the sixth as refers to the statement i^n- 
 iiexed to it, the American article annexed to the first, and the state- 
 ments annexed to the sixth and seventh, respectively. i 
 
 The arguments used on both sides being embodied in those two 
 statements, I beg leave to refer to them, and, for the progress of tiie 
 negotiation, to the protocols and. to my former despatches. You will 
 be pleased to observe that there is a difference between the boundaries 
 of the detached territory offered by the British Plenipotentiaries at 
 the third conference, as delineated in the rough sketch already trans- 
 mitted, aind those described in the protocol. 
 
 The negotiation for a continuance of the joint occupancy is .not yet 
 terminated, and its progress jmay be traced in the fourth and part of 
 the sixth protocol. I would not have insisted on the amendment pro- 
 posed by me at the fourth conference to the article now in force, as I 
 would have thought it sufficient to enter on the protocol that the article 
 was agreed to, with the understanding that it was not to be construed 
 as an admission, on the part of the United States, that any other fo- 
 reign country had now a right to any part of the territory in question. 
 But I could not agree to any additional or explanatory article without 
 the previous apprabation of my Government; and you will see, by my 
 declaration in the fourth protocol, that the whole subject is referr^^ 
 to the President u 
 
 The first question is, therefore, whether there is any advantage in 
 a renewal and continuance of the joint occupancy ; and, if so, for 
 what term ? The British Plenipotentiaries propose fifteen, would 
 prefer twenty, and will agree to ten years. The next question relates 
 to the additional conditions, which they consider as explanatory of, 
 and in conformity with, the original agreement; only they observed, 
 that, as we had no settlements, the last condition was to our advantage. 
 It is doubtful to me, whether it is proposed in order to prevent .any 
 inference being drawn in support of our claim to exclusive sovereign- 
 ty from the former settlement at Astoria, or whether to establish 
 clearly, and to impress on their subjects, that Great Britain neither 
 now nor hereafter means to claim such exclusive sovereignty. Mr. 
 Husliisson, in the course of the discussion, several times repeated that 
 there was no intention on the part of Great Britain to colonize the 
 country. They have certainly no other immediate object than that of 
 protecting the Northwest Company in her fur trade. # # * # 
 »***### You will decide whether this last condition 
 is, on the whole, for our interest or not Although I cannot sp^^ 
 
■/'\ '. 
 
 M 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 ^l i- 
 
 B:'i;! 
 
 I! I 
 
 'I' ,' 
 
 ! positively, I do not think that it would be adhei'ed to on the pai*t of 
 Great Britain, if you object to it. 
 
 With respect to the first condition, the British Plenipotentiaries hex 
 sitated whether the word "exclusive" should remain or not. As they 
 appeared indiflTerent or doubtful about it, I advised that it should re- 
 main for your consideration*. The first question is, what is meant 
 thereby ? 
 
 The right of exercising sovereignty, provided it is not exclusive, 
 will remain with each party, and by that it is intended that each should 
 have jurisdiction over its own citizens or subjects, and have a right to 
 punish offences committed by them. The establishment of military 
 |)osts, provided they do not command exclusively the mouth of the 
 Columbia, is not objected to. Any imiiedimenl to the free navigation 
 of harbors and rivers, the laying of duties, or establishment of any 
 custom-house, the removing or disturbing of any British settlement, 
 and the exercise of any jurisdiction over British subjects, would be 
 considered as infractions of the condition. But it miist be observed, 
 that they would be equally considered as infractions of the existing 
 < article, without the additional condition, and as acts of aggression, if 
 the joint occupancy is not continued by a Convention. And it is in 
 that sense that you must understand the words that ** Great Britain 
 will give protection," &c. in the latter part of the statement of her 
 claims and views. It \v^a also to those expressions, thus understood, 
 that I alluded in the counter statement, in saying that there were cer- 
 tain parts of the statement on which I would make no remarks, and 
 which I must refer to m^ Government. The establishment of a dis- 
 tinct Territorial Governtnent on the west of the Stony Mountains, 
 would also be objected to, as an attempt to exercise exclusive sove- 
 reignty. I observed, that, although the Northwest Company might, 
 from its being incorporate^, from the habits of the men they employ- 
 ed, and from having a iWnopoly with respect to trade, so far as Bri- 
 tish subjects were concerned, carry on a species of government, with- 
 out the assistance of that of Great Britain. It was otherwise with 
 us. Our population there would consist of several independent com- 
 panies and individuals. We had always been in the habit, in our most 
 remote settlements, of carrying laws, courts, and justices of the 
 peace with us. There was an absolute necessity, on our part, to have 
 some species of government. Without it, the kind of sovereignty, or 
 rather jurisdiction, which it was intended to admit, could not be exer- 
 cised on our part. It was suggested, and seemed to be acquiesced in, 
 that the difficulty might be obviated, provided the erection of a new 
 .Territory was not confined exclusively to the territory west of the 
 mountains ; that it should be defined as embracing al!: ^In^ possessions 
 of the United States west of a line that should be at some distance 
 from, and east of, the Stony Mountains. 
 
 It appeal's, from all that has passed during the discussion, that the 
 important point is to agree on the acts which may or may not be dune 
 during the joint occupanc;, . All those which have been thought of as 
 likely to occur, are stated in this letter, andtothoselbegleaveto call 
 
on the paH of 
 
 ipotentiaries hei 
 
 r not. As they 
 
 lat it should re- 
 
 \^hat is meant 
 
 i not exclusive, 
 hat each should 
 have a right to 
 5nt of military 
 B mouth of the 
 free navigation 
 shment of any 
 ish settlement^ 
 3cts, would be 
 it be observed, 
 af the existing 
 aggression, if 
 
 And it is in 
 Great Britain 
 tement of her 
 is understood, 
 lere were cer- 
 remarks, and 
 nent of a dis- 
 y Mountains, 
 ^elusive sove- 
 ™pany might, 
 they employ- 
 10 far as Bri- 
 nment, with- 
 lerwise with 
 tendent com- 
 
 in our most 
 tices of the 
 lart, to have 
 ereignty, or 
 not be exer- 
 quiesced in, 
 n of a new 
 west of the 
 possessions 
 me distance 
 
 m, that the 
 nut be done 
 ought of as 
 Pave to call 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.J 
 
 •1 
 
 your attention. What are those in which you agree with the British . 
 Plenipotentiaries ? What are those you object to, deridedly ? When 
 agreed on those points, the expi'efsions which may be used, and whi^h, 
 after all, must always be generate become less important. The ques. 
 tions respecting those acts must, at all events, be decided ; as in the 
 •vent, either of a simple renewal of the existing article, or of no agree- 
 ment whatever being made on the subject, they will still occur when- 
 ever our citizens or troops cross the mountains. I beg that the instruc- 
 tions may be comprehensive and explicit, so as not to render it neces- 
 sary to make another reference. 
 
 Although the suggestion mentioned in a former despatch, of lines 
 defining exclusive sovereignty, and leaving between them debatable 
 ground of joint occupancy and sovereignty, was not favorably receiv- 
 ed by the British Plenipotentiaries, I would wish to have the Presi- 
 dent's opinion upon it. It is possible that, as a last alternative, it may 
 be recurred to ; and, in that case, I should know not only whether the 
 1 rinciple is admissible, but how the lines should be defined. 
 I have the honor to be, &c. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN. 
 Hon. Hekbt Cl4T, 
 
 Secretary of State, fVashington, ^ 
 
 [bxtbact.] 
 Mr, Oallatin to Mr. Clay. 
 
 "t 
 
 LoTunoN, May 29, 1627. 
 
 << Sir : Our eighth conference took place on the 24th instant. The ? 
 protocol is not yet agreed on. 
 
 ** I made the declaration reserving to my Government the right of 
 contending for the full extent of the claims of the United States to the 
 territory west of the Stony Mountains; on which, Mr. Huskisson 
 said that they would, on their part, enter on the record a protest 
 against those claims. '^, „' 
 
 '** I then stitted that the President could not agree to the provisions of 
 the second article of the projet of the Convention for the joint occu- 
 pancy of the territories in question ; andihat, after a deliberate ex- 
 amination of the subject, he was still of opinion that a simple renewal 
 of the former agreement for a limited term of years was sufficient, and 
 the most eligible course to be adopted, for the present ; it being of 
 course understood, that, during that period, the two Governments 
 would, according to the former suggestion of the British Plenipoten** 
 tiaries, unite their endeavors to adjust their differences by the estab- 
 lishment of a permanent boundary in that quarter. This was taken 
 ad referendum ; Mr. Huskisson saying that he must consult his col- 
 leagues on that subject.'' .. f . V. ^- 
 
 « P. S. I did. not omit, in respect to the western territory, to re- 
 mind the British Plenipotentiaries of the act of Parliament by which 
 
n 
 
 S3 
 
 [Doti. 1^6. li^! j 
 
 Great Britain had actually extended her jurisdiction over it, and to 
 say that it was a matter of surprise, that any objection conld hav6 been 
 made to the supposed intention of the United States topCirsue the sTame 
 coarse. All that could belaid in answer by Mr. Huskisson was, that 
 'it was to the intention of establishing a custom-house and exacting du- 
 ties, that he had objected, as contrary to the third article of the Con- 
 vention of 1818. So far he may be right.'' ^ 
 
 i^-"'-;. 
 
 11' ■' 
 
 ^.y.^ 
 
 [extract.] 
 Jiir, OaUatin ioMr. Clay, 
 
 ...i^f V. 
 
 LoNOoir, June 20, 1827. 
 
 *< Sir : Cabinet councils having been held on Saturday and Monday 
 last, our conference did not take place till yesterday. The British 
 Pleni|iotentiaries expressed their assent to a renewal for ten years of 
 the third article of the Convention of 1818, but with a declaration on 
 the part of Great Britain, to be entered in the protocol, that, according 
 to her understanding of the article, neither party could exercise ex- 
 clusive jurisdiction in the jterritory in question. 
 
 << I replied, with respect to the declaration, that, if entered on the 
 protocol without a counter declaration on my part, it would be tanta- 
 mount to an express article to the same effect, which I had explicitly 
 stated could not be agi-eed to by the United States; and that suppos- 
 ing I could frame such a counter declaration, satisfactory to myself, 
 it appeared to me that an agreement, accompanied by two such con- 
 tradictory assertions of its true meaning and intention, would be nu- 
 gatory and useless." 
 
 
 
 ■H:fl-r::i 
 
 „{i 
 
 '-»;4-»-- 
 
 Mr. Odlldiin to Mr, clay* 
 
 '\ ■ .■ .o: iy--':'- ;jii^i*;'>»?l« ^'^ . ■/;:;•:» t/'LoNDOH, JtineiS, 1827*. ' 
 
 Sir : I received from Mr. Addthgton, on the 2 ist instant, the draft 
 of protocol of our next preceding conference, of which a copy is en- 
 closed. The mention made in it of the intended British declaration, 
 to be annexed to the renewal of: the 3d article of the Convention of 
 1818, would have had the same effect as the declaration itself. „ I said 
 as much at our conference of yesterday ; and that, if the British Ple- 
 nipotentiaries insisted on having the protocol expressed in that man- 
 ner. I would decline altogether agreeing to tliG renewal. They agreed 
 that the drawing of the protocol should be suspended until vvc had dis- 
 posed of the subject. 
 
 [ then stated tit large, my objections bot!i to the declaration and to 
 the pniposed additional article of the Commercial Convention. And, 
 in order tliat these might be duly considered and cori-ectly communi- 
 
[Doc. No. 199.1 
 
 aa 
 
 cated by Mr. Huskissoii to liis colleagues, I put in the hands of the 
 rieniiratcntiaries two papers, containing the substance of those ob-' 
 jections ; of which copies are also enclosed. Tliey liave tv' \ these 
 t'ur consideration, and apparently with the intention of givin,^ a defi- 
 nitive answer on both subjects, at our next conference, which is to 
 take place on Tuesday next, 26th instant. 
 
 Wo afterwards took up the subject of the northeast boundary, And 
 made some progress. 
 
 I have the honor, &c. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN. 
 Hon. HfiNRT Clat, ; - 
 
 Secretary of State, IVashingtoiu \ , , 
 
 I liave just ivceivcd your despatches, of 12th and 15tli May, Nos. 
 ^8 iind 29. Tlie number 24 is still missing. '■' 
 
 sxercise ex- 
 
 OhneroationH on the project of declaration, to be annexed to the renewal qf 
 the Convention respecting the Territory xoest of the Stony Mountains : 
 
 The American Pleni|)otentiary explicitly stated, at the Sth confer^ 
 ence, that his Government had taken into serious consideration the 
 project of Convention, which had been ofTered, at the sixth confer- 
 unce, by the British Plenipotentiares, and that they could not agree 
 to the provisions of the second arti((le of that projet. 
 
 One of those provisions was. that neither of the contracting parties 
 should, during the term agreed on for tlie continuance of the former 
 agreement, assume or exercise any right of exclusive sovereignty or 
 dominion over any part of the country west of the Stony Mountains. 
 
 By the proposed declaration, his Britannic Majesty would declare 
 that his Majesty considers himself, and in like manner holds that the 
 United States are equally precluded, by the provisions of the thii'd 
 article of the Convention of 1818, now intended to be renewed, from 
 exercising, or assuming to exercise, any exclusive sovereignty or juris- 
 diction over the territory in question. 
 
 To acquiesce in such declaration, whether annexed in the Conven- 
 tion or inserted in the protocol, would be tantamount to the insertion, 
 in the Convention, of the same provision, to which, as part of the 
 second article of the projet offered at the sixth cqnference, ^he United 
 States have already declared their inability to accede. 
 
 The American Pleniiiotentiary is not prepared to annex to the re- 
 newal a declaration oil the part of the United States ; and, indeed, 
 with two such contradictory instruments, it vrauld seem preposterous 
 to make any agreement whatever. 
 
 He must, therefore, declare his inability to agree to a renewal of 
 the thii*d article of the Convention of 1818, if accompanied with a 
 declaration such as has been proposed, or such as is inserted in iftt 
 draft of protor/il for tlie last conference. 
 
31 
 
 m 
 
 1 i!:i 
 
 ll'i u- 
 
 II ! 
 
 m 
 
 f\ 
 
 J? 
 
 1 '■ 
 
 .,v 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.1 
 
 Any act, of cither party, that would impede or impair the rights' 
 secured, by the said third article, to the vessels, citizens, and sub- 
 jects, of tlietwo Powers, would be in contravention of the article; in 
 other respects it is silent on the subject of sovereignty and jurisdic- 
 tion ; and the inconveniences against which it may have been the ob* 
 Ject of the proposed declaration to provide, are only apprehended, but 
 have not yet been experienced. 
 
 By the act of Parliament of tlie 2d July, 19tiM, {> and 2, Geo. IV. 
 cap. 66,) entitled <*An act for regulating the fur trade, and estab- 
 lishing a criminal and civil jurisdiction within certain parts of North 
 America," Great Britain has assumed such jurisdict'ton as suited 'her 
 own purposes, leaving to a powerfiil company the general govern- 
 ment of the country. 
 
 That act, taken literally and in the abstract, may bo liable to ob- 
 jections on the part of the United States. It has not been critically 
 examined with that view, because no practical inconvenience has been 
 felt from it, and in full confidence that it, was not intended, and 
 would not be executed, so as to contravene the compact between the 
 two countries. 
 
 The United States, on their part, have not assumed cr exercised 
 any sovereignty or jurisdiction over the country. Whenever this 
 may become necessary, tl^ey have the same right to do it, in the man- 
 ner most suitable to their institutions, ami to the pursuits of their sub- 
 jects. The same reliance may bo placed on their violating no exist- 
 ing agreement. It is also their wish to avoid, as far as practicable, 
 any measures that might produce collisions.. 
 
 That so long as no permanent boundary sball have been agreed on^ 
 the subject will be attended with difficulties, cannot be concealed. 
 The United States have not believed that these would be removed by 
 provisions expressed in such general terms as that proposed by Great 
 Britain. Neither Government appears, at this moment, to be pre- 
 pared for more specific conditions. It is submitted, whether, as pre- 
 paratory to a more definitive arrangement, and in order to obviate 
 the objections to which the renewal for as long a term as had been con- 
 templated, may be liable, the best course might not be to renew the 
 former agreement for only four years, and thenceforth until one party 
 shall have given the other one year's notice of his desire to put an 
 end to it. 
 
 
 'f: 
 
 ' [exteact.] f 
 
 Jlr, Oallatin to Mr, Clay* 
 
 London, 27th JunCf 1827. 
 
 << SiK : A new suggestion was also made respecting the renewal of 
 the agreement for the joint occupancy of the territory west of the Stony 
 Mountains. The British Plenipotentiaries had it in contemplation to 
 
[Doc. No. i99.] •• 
 
 insert in tlio protocol a declaration pui^rting, cither that, according 
 tu their understanding; of the agreement, neither party had a right to 
 take military possession of the country, or that, if the United States 
 did establish any military posts in the country. Great Britain wonid 
 do the same. They preferred the first mode, as the other might be 
 construed by the United States as having the appearance of a threat. 
 Great Britain, they said, had no wish to establish such posts, and 
 would do it only in self-defence. But she could not acquiesce in acts 
 on the part of the United States, which would give sanction to their 
 claim of sabsolute and exclusive sovereignty, and calculated also to 
 produce collisions having a national character. Occasional distur- 
 bances between the traders of the two countries might be overlooked ; 
 but any question connected with the flag of either Power would be of 
 a serious nature, and might commit them in a most inconvenient and 
 dangerous manner. 
 
 << I replied, that I could not agree jjp the renewal of the agreement, 
 rf accompanied with the insertion in the protocol of any declaration 
 puqiorting to attach any construction or interpretation whatever to 
 the agreement As to a declaration, not pretending to give such con- 
 struction, but stating what the British Government intended to do in 
 the event of a certain contingency, I would take it into consideration 
 when made, and see whetlier it should or should not preclude me from 
 agreeing to the renewal. But I would observe, that the proper place 
 ot a declaration of this nature, was not in the protocol. If it was the 
 intention of tlie British Government to signify their determination of 
 cstabliflhing military posts in that country, in case it was done by 
 the United States, such communication was equally necessary whe- 
 ther there was or was not a renewal of the agreement. And the most 
 proper mode of making it, was through the ordinary channels of diplo- 
 matic communications, through the British Minister at Washington ; 
 or, if done here, by a note from the British Secretary State to the 
 American Minister. It did not appear to me to have any thing to do 
 with our negotiations for a renewal of tlie agreement. 
 
 *< The contemplated renewal itself would be attended with no pecu- 
 liar advantages to the United States. It was altogether a matter of 
 mutual concern. There was no other object for it than that of pre- 
 serving peace, until a permanent boundary could be agreed on. As it 
 now stood, it provided only for one thing — that the traders of cither 
 party should not impede those of the other party. There was but 
 one condition in the agreement, and that related cxclusivelv to a free 
 trade. Other conditions might be found necessary fur the preserva- 
 tion of harmony. The Government of the United States was not at 
 this time prepared to make a new agreement, embracing such addi- 
 tional stipulations. The same observation seemed to apply to the 
 British Government, since they had not been able to propose any 
 thing more than a clause expressed in such general terms as not at 
 all to prevent collisions on the subject. From the exposition which 
 Gi-eat Britain had now made of her claim, I was jicrsonally inclined 
 to think that a more specific agreement, calculated to preserve peace 
 
86 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 ■i;lli 
 
 
 ill 
 
 I' 
 
 !15 
 
 nil '|M 
 
 iv! 
 
 |:| 
 
 't ii 
 
 in every i'o.«^ect, ^vltfl not impracticable, and would b« rather advaiP* 
 tageouH to the United Stated. 
 
 It appeared from that exiiosition, that Great Britain denied, indeed, 
 their exclusive right to any part of the territory in question, but made 
 no exclusive claim herself, and considered it as open to the firstoccu* 
 pant. Although the United States asnerted, and would not abandon 
 their exclusive right, in fact, (he country must necessarily become 
 ultimately theirs, even according to the British doctrine, in that 
 view of the subject, all that the United States might want, was the 
 very object which Great Britain declared to bo hers, viz. the pre- 
 servation of peace, until (if no arrangement for a permanent bounda- 
 ry should* take place) the whole country was occupied : and I hud my- 
 self no doubt that it would be entirely occupied and settled by the 
 citizens of the United States. 
 
 *' Diflfuulties would certainly occur in adjusting the stipulations ne- 
 cessary to preserve peace. 1 hail already, in a former discussion* 
 mentioned one relating to military occupancy. This was not wanted 
 by Great Britain. The servants of her great fur company wore nu- 
 merous enougli, and so organized as to afford sufficient protection to 
 persons and property against Indian aggressions, and, at the same 
 time, under such restraints as prevented them from provoking such 
 aggressions. It was otherwise with the United States, and exjie- 
 rience had shown that a qiilitary force was necessary and sufficient to 
 preserve ])eace with the Indians. 
 
 « But, however difficult in its details, and though not prepared at 
 this moment to discuss them, the object in view was certainly of great 
 importance to both parties. I was inclined to think that a simple re- 
 newal of the agreement, and nothing more was practicable at pre- 
 sent, was best calculated to keep the two Powers in a situation favor- 
 able to the success of a negotiation for that purpose. M^ith the same 
 object in view, if Great Britain thought it more eligible to have in the 
 meanwhile no agreement whatever on that subject, it was left entirely 
 at her option so to decide. 
 
 <*The British Plenipotentiaries said, that there was such an avowed 
 intention, on the part of the United States, to establish a military 
 post, that they thought that they could not agree to a renewal of the 
 former agreement, without making, at the same time, some declara- 
 tion on that point ; but that they would again consider the subject, be- 
 fore they came to a definitive determination.'* . 
 
 I'M 
 
 1 1} 
 
 ■* Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Clay. 
 
 London, 7th Jiugustf IB27. 
 The Hon. Hekry Ciat, .. 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to enclose a Convention, concluded yesterday 
 with the British Plenipotentiaries, renewing indefinitely, but liable to 
 be annulled at the will of either pai'ty, the third article of the Conven- 
 «onofl818. 
 
 ^ii f 
 
[l)oc. No. 199.3 
 
 87 
 
 The negotiation fur ofitabliahing a permanent boundary between tho 
 United StatcH and Great Bntain west of the Rocky Mountains failed 
 altogether. The protocols of the three first conferences exhiuit the 
 proposals made on both sides ; and the arguments urged by each 
 party, are embodied in the exposition of their claims, as annexed by 
 each, respectively, to the sixtli and seventh protocols. 
 
 I'he renewal of tho temporary agreement contained in the 3d arti- 
 cle of the Convention of 1818, was then discussed; and the British 
 Plenipotentiaries offered, at the sixth conference (of 1 6th Dec. 1 8S6,) 
 a projet of Convention, proposing a renewal of the said article for fifteen 
 years, but with the condition, amongst others, that neither party 
 should, during that term, exercise iftiy right of exclusive sovereignty 
 or dominion over any part of the country in question. . 
 
 This project having been referred to my Government, your answer, 
 declining tlie proposed condition, was rercivcd before the month of 
 April. But the negotiations, which it had been intended to resume 
 in February, had been suspended, on account of Mr. Huskisson's state 
 of health ; and tho unsettled situation of the British cabinet prevented 
 a renewal of the conferences till the 24th of May. 
 
 After it had been declared, on my part, that the United States 
 could not acceile to the restrictive condition proposed by the British 
 Plenipotentiaries, they intimated an intention of agreeing to the re- 
 newal of tho former agreement without condition, but of inserting in 
 the protocol a declaration that they considered Uoth parties, according 
 to the true intent of that agreement, to be restricted, during its contin- 
 uance, from exercising any exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction over 
 the territory in question. 
 
 I stated that, considering an acquiescence to such declaration as 
 tantamount to an acceptance of the same article whicli the United 
 States had thought inadmissible, I could not agree to the renewal of 
 the agreement, if accompanied by the insertion in the protocol of tho 
 suggested declaration, or of any purporting to explain the intent or 
 meaning of tho article intended to be continued in force. 
 
 Various other proposals were suggested, though not presented in an 
 official shape, having the same object in view: such as that neither 1 
 Power should establish any military post in the territory in question, , 
 and that the citizens and subjects of either coiuitry'should, for any of* 
 fences or acts done in that territory, be amenable only to the tribu-. 
 nals of their own country. To all these, I gave, as a general answer," 
 that I could not entertain any such proposals ; their object being, in 
 my opinion, to preclude, in another form, the exe^'cise of exclusive so- 
 vereignty, a provision which I wa'i not authorised to admit, and to 
 which the United States were not pi'epared to accjede. 
 
 The reasons assigned by the British Plenipotentiaries for this pro- 
 vision were, that, according to their view of tiie subject, it was the 
 true intent or object of the former agreement, to keep in abeyance, 
 during its continuance, all conflicting rights to the territory to which, 
 it related ; that the Government of the United States had manifested 
 an intention to enforce the rights they claimed, by assuming exclu- 
 sive sovereignty, as appeared by a bill wliirh had passed one of the 
 
Il!l 
 
 ill 
 
 . „J -i 
 
 ;!il 
 
 III ■'' 
 
 ,1'', 
 
 
 ''MB ! 
 
 il ^'' 
 
 
 
 [Doc. No. 1W9.] 
 
 branches of the Legislature, for extending to that territory iegtshi* 
 '.'^ tive, executive, and judicial jurisdiction, and, by tlie recommendation 
 of the President, to establish there a military post ; and that it would 
 be utterly impossible to prevent collisions of a national character, if 
 the two parties should pr( jeed to sucli acts of absolute sovereignty. 
 
 It was deuied, on my part, that any thing more was meant or in- 
 tended by the former agreement than what appeared on the face of it ; 
 and that all that was provided for by that compact, was to leave the 
 country open to the commerce of the citizens or subjects of both par- 
 ties, without liindcraNce either from the Government or from the sub- 
 jects or citizens of cither party. 
 
 I observed, that, whatever miglft be the presumed intentions of the 
 American Government, they had not, as yet, do!ie a single act assum- 
 ing jurisdiction of any kind over the territory west of the Rocky 
 Mountains ; and that it was rather singular that the mere apprehen< 
 sion of sych acts should hav* brought forth the proposal which had 
 been made by the British Plenipotentiaries, at (he very time when 
 Great Britain had herself assumed that jurisdiction which she con- 
 sidered dangerous to the peace of the two countries. 
 
 The act of Parliament (1 and S George iv. ch. 66) of 2d July, 1821, 
 entitled « An act for regulating the fur trade, and establishing a' 
 criminal and civil jurisdiction within certain parts of North America," 
 authorized the King to grant to any company, or persons, the exclu- 
 sive privilege of trading with the Indians, in all parts of North Amer- 
 ica, not being part of the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 of His Majesty's Provinces in North America, or of any lands or ter- 
 ritories belonging to the United States of America. But a special ex- 
 ception was made by the fourth section of the act, expressly founded 
 OH the Convention betvveen Great Britain and the United States, and 
 declaring, that nothing in the act contained should be construed to au- 
 thorize any such persons or company to exercise such exclusive trade 
 to the prejudice or exclusion of any citizens of the United States, who 
 might be engaged in the said trade. 
 
 No such exception was made in relation to the provisions of the act 
 establishing jurisdiction. The courts of Upper Canada were, by 
 those provisions, declared to have the same civil jurisdiction, in all 
 i-espects, within the parts of America not within the limits of Lower 
 or Upper Canada, or of any civil government of the United States, 
 as they had within the limits of Upper Canada. The King was au- 
 thorized to appoint persons to act as justices of the peace within the 
 aforesaid parts of America, and to cojistitute courts, composed of such 
 justices, and having an inferior civil and ci'iminal jurisdiction. All 
 capital and other liigh offences, and all civil suits above a certain 
 amount, were to be tried in the courts of Upper Canada. No pro- 
 vision was insertcl, excepting citizens of the United States from that 
 jurisdiction. And this extended precisely to the country in question, 
 to the whole territory west of the Stony Mountains, since the territo- 
 ries of the Hudson's Bay Company did not reach beyond those moun- 
 tains, and the British Government denied that any part of the said 
 territory was within tlic limits of t!ie United States. 
 
 "W; 
 
 Il ull 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 ry legishi- 
 mcridation 
 it it would 
 aracter, if 
 i-ei^nty. 
 eaiit or in- 
 face of it ; 
 1) leave the 
 ' both par- 
 im the sub- 
 
 July, 1821. 
 ablishing a 
 1 America," 
 , the exclu- 
 iorth Amer- 
 ^ Company, 
 anda or ter- 
 1 special ex- 
 isly founded 
 States, and 
 trued to au- 
 iusive trade 
 States, who 
 
 IS of the act 
 |a were, by 
 ;tion, in all 
 Its of Lower 
 lited States, 
 |ing was a»- 
 within the 
 •scd of such 
 iction. All 
 c a certain 
 No i» ro- 
 ts from that 
 |in question, 
 tlic territo- 
 :hosc moun- 
 of the said 
 
 It was therefore evident that Great Britain had given to the teropO" 
 rary agreement of 1818, the same construction for which I contend- 
 cd ; that she considered it as securing the citizens and subjects of th^ * 
 two countries in the enjoyment of a free trade within the limits of the 
 territory in question, but not as imposing any other restrictions on 
 cither Government. 
 
 The United States might indeed have a right to complain of some 
 of the provisions of the act of Parliament, not as being a breach of the 
 compact, but generally as an infraction of the right of sovereignty 
 claimed ly them over a considerable part of the territory. If no 
 sucli complaint had been made, it was probably because the act had 
 nut been literally executed. But Great Britatn having assumed in 
 fact as much jurisdiction as was necessary for the protection of her 
 subjects, and for the maintenance of order in the country, so far as 
 she was concerned, could not, at all events, complain, if the United 
 States should, on their pari, adopt such measures as were necessary 
 for the same object ; even if these were not precisely the same which 
 had been deemed sufficient by Great Britain. 
 
 A powerful incorporated company, to the exclusion of prfvatc 
 Dritish traders, was, in itself, a territorial Government. Even the 
 extensive and {xipulous regions of the East, had, for a long period, 
 been governed through the same means. In the American territo- 
 ries, inhabited by the native tribes, experience had shown that, when- 
 ever private British traders had been admitted, or even when the 
 competition was only between two compames, intestine contentious 
 and bloodshed could not be prevented. But when there was but one 
 exclusive company, its agents were the governors, all tlie other 
 British subjects in the territory were the servants of that company ; 
 they miglit be, and were kept under perfect subordination, restrained 
 from committing any outrages on the Indians, and foi*ming a force 
 sufficient for protection against them. Peace and order had, through 
 tliose means, been effectually preserved. Nothing was wanting to 
 complete the system, but the establishment of proper tribunals for 
 deciding civil suits and trying offences. This was precisely what 
 had been done by the act of Parliament, of 1821. Taking all its 
 provisions together, it answered every purpose which Great Britain 
 had in view. But, in order to attain the same object, the United 
 States would be obliged to resort to different means. 
 
 The establishment of an exclusive comjiany appeared incompatible 
 with their habits and institutions. They could not govern the coun- 
 try and preserve peace through that medium. So far as related to the 
 administration of justice, Great Britain could not deny their right of 
 doing what she had done herself, of establishing i)roper tribunals ; and 
 it was immaterial whether the Superior Courts sat within or without 
 the limits of the territory. But the executive authority, as it could 
 not be vested in the agents of a company, must be exercised by offi- 
 cers of the United States. And again, not having the numerous ser- 
 vants of a company under their control, they had no other means to 
 preserve peace but a mili^ ry force. This was imleed altogether ur- 
 
4b 
 
 INI 
 
 ! 
 
 ill 
 
 
 ■! .1 ' 
 
 I: ; 
 
 i*8 I 
 
 111 
 
 ' ' I 
 
 MM-<' 
 
 '■ill 
 
 :'!! i. 
 
 '!)' 
 
 
 '.I 
 
 i '!'- 
 
 •I Mill ' 
 
 ! iHHl .!i 
 
 LDoc. No. t99.] 
 
 necessary, and never resorted to for that purpose in tlio interior part* 
 of the United States. But experience had also proved, that, in what 
 was called Indian territories, and along their borders, such a force 
 was necessary, and a small one was sufficient to protect the white in> 
 habitants against Indian depredations, and the Indians themselves 
 against the aggressions of lawless indivi<luals. I'eace had thus fur 
 a number of years been preserved with the Indians and amongst the 
 Indians. It had been found impracticable to do it without such means. 
 
 I admitted, at the same time, that there was, if not imminent, at least 
 ultimate danger of collisions, as long as no permanent boundary was 
 agreed on in that quarter ; and that it was extremely desirable that 
 some arrangement might be made, which should in the meanwhile 
 prevent any serious differences arising from that cause between the 
 two countries. i 
 
 This object would not be attained by simply agreeing to a condi- 
 tion expressed in terms so general and vague, as that which had been 
 proposed on the part of Great Britain, and which, if acceded to, would, 
 without providing for what she had in view, give occasion to new dis- 
 cussions respecting its true meaning. Thus, for instance, she was de- 
 sirous that neither party should establish any military post in the 
 country ; and, if both should happen to do it, the act could not, on 
 either side, be considered as one of exclusive sovereignty. The only 
 agreement that could answer the end proposed, must be one containing 
 specific provisions, enumerating the acts which each party might do^ 
 and those from which each must abstain, during its continuance. But 
 this subject had not yet been taken into consideration by my Govern- 
 ment. Both the utility and the difficulty of such an arrangement had, 
 for the first time, been brought distinctly into view in the course of 
 this negotiation. The various proposals or suggestions of the British 
 Plenipotentiaries, not always according with each other in principle, 
 showed that the views of neither party were yet matured. I had no 
 doubt that my Government would be disposed to enter into an agree-' 
 ment calculated to prevent disputes, provided this was found practi- 
 cable ; that they would entertain any proposals having that object in 
 view, and which should neither affect the rights claimed by the United 
 States, nor impede the pursuits of tlieir citizens artd the progress of 
 their settlements in the territory west of the Rocky Mountains. But 
 this must be the subject of a subsequent negotiation . There was no 
 pressing immediate necessity for such an agreement. At all events, 
 I was not authorized to conclude, or, indeed, the subject being quite 
 new, to discuss its details. I covhl only agree to a simple renewal 
 of the third article. The United States had no particular interest in 
 its continuance. It was a matter of mutual concern. If there was 
 any advantage in not suffering that agreement to expire, it was com> 
 mon to both parties. Without attaching a very great importance to 
 it, the Government of the United States, seeing no inconvenience in 
 its renewal for a term not exceeding ten years, had instructed me to 
 that effect, because the country being as yet used only for the pur- 
 pose of trading with the natives, there appeared a mutual advantage 
 
[Doc No. 199.1 
 
 41 
 
 ciior part* 
 it, in what 
 icli a force 
 Q white iii« 
 tliemselves 
 id thus fur 
 nongst the 
 ich means, 
 nt, at least 
 indary was 
 irable that 
 meanwhile 
 etwcen the 
 
 ) a condi- 
 li had been 
 I to, would, 
 o new dis- 
 ;he was de- 
 post in the 
 uld not, on 
 The only 
 containing 
 f might doy 
 ance. But 
 ly Govern- 
 ement had; 
 course of 
 the British 
 principle, 
 I had no 
 an agree- 
 jnd practi- 
 tt object in 
 the United 
 )rogress of 
 ins. But 
 ere was no 
 all events, 
 Mting quite 
 le renewal 
 interest in 
 there was 
 , was com- 
 lortance to 
 v'enience in 
 3ted me to 
 [)r the pur- 
 advantage 
 
 that the subjects and citizens of neither party should be disturbed in 
 that pursuit by those of the other party. The course which the dis- 
 cussion had taken, suggested; another reason in favor of the renewal. 
 The dissolution of the existing agreement, wliilst tlie boundary re- 
 mained unsettled, would have an unfavorable moral effect on the re- 
 lations between the two countries. They would be left in almost an 
 hostile attitude in that quarter. A temporary renewal would give 
 time to mature measures of a more permanent nature, and leave both 
 parties in a better temper to enter into the discussion of those mea- 
 sures. All these were general considerations, not more applicable to 
 the United States than to Great Britain, ?^iid it was now lor her to de- 
 cide ; but it was the only option left, whether she would agree to a 
 temporary renewal, without any additional condition or explanatory 
 declaration. 
 
 Tiie British Plenipotentiaries did not admit that the act of Parlia- 
 ment of July, 1821, was susceptible of the strict literal construction I 
 had put upon it. They declared, explicitly, that it had no other object 
 but the maintenance of order amongst British subjects, and had never 
 been intended to apply to citizens of the United States. That such 
 was not the intentbn of Great Britain, was evident from the various 
 proposals now made on her part, having all for their object to prevent 
 both parties from assuming an exclusive jurisdiction. 
 
 They expressed their regret that I was not authorized or even pre- 
 pared to enter into a discussion of the measures necessary to prevent 
 most serious differences taking place. An arrangement to that effect, 
 though attended with tlifficulties, did not appear to them impractica- 
 ble. There was no intention on the part of Great Britain to colonize 
 the country, or to impede the progress of our settlements. They 
 would be disposed, if such an arrangement as they contemplated could 
 be effected, to assign to it a longer duration than had been at first 
 mentioned, (perhaps 25 years,) and to leave the further occupation and 
 settlement of a country, which they considered as equally open to all, 
 to take its own course. But Great Britain owed protection to her 
 subjects in that quaHer, and could not admit that they should, so long 
 as the permanent boundary was not settled, be liable to a foreign ju- 
 risdiction. Nor would her interest, or a due regard to- national cha- 
 racter, permit her to acquiesce in an exclusive military occupation of 
 the country, on the part of the United States. The necessary conse,- 
 quence of such an occupation on their part, would be the establish- 
 ment, also, of military posts on the part of Great Britain. There 
 was a great difference between the national flag and that of a private 
 company : and they apprehend that the erection of the first, by either 
 party, would render the final adjustment of the boundary line more 
 difficult, and the preservation of peace more precarious. 
 
 The British Plenipotentiaries added, that, considering the nature 
 of the claim to the country, as set up by each party. Great Britain 
 would hardly be placed on equal terms, if the agreement was renewed, 
 without inserting in it, insorie shape, the condition they had suggest- 
 ed — the United States asserting a claim of absolute aovereignty, and 
 6 
 

 i !l iTMl 
 
 
 ii 
 
 ■1,1 
 
 1 m 
 
 m 
 
 '■'if 
 
 ill 
 
 i 
 
 :1 1 
 
 \i 
 
 Ill 
 
 ■1'^ 
 
 .(|! 
 
 I i 
 
 ■ 
 
 : m\ 
 
 M 
 
 ?^ 
 
 •It'll 
 
 ill It; i 
 
 42 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 a latitude for the construction of that compact, which Great Britain 
 denied to herself. They could not, therefore, agree to a simple re- 
 newal for a fixed term of years ; but they would not object to a tem- 
 porary continuance, with the intention of preventing C(^Ii»ions, while 
 measures were maturing for a more permanent arrangement. 
 
 To this overture I acceded without licsitation, ^nd proposed, as had 
 been done by the British Plenipotentiaries, in relation to the commer- 
 cial Convention, that each party should be at liberty to rescind the 
 agreement, on giving twelve months' notice to the otiier party. Thi^ 
 indeed, appeared to me, upon the whole, a more eligible mode than 
 that of a renewal for ten years ; it being quite as probable that the 
 United States may find it expedient to annul the compact before the 
 expiration of that term, as that it will suit the convenience of Great 
 Britain to do it. 
 
 I beg leave here to observe, that some of the most cogent motives 
 for having made the agreement in 1818, have now ceased to operate. 
 The country is still now, as it was then, almost exclusively occupied 
 by the British tradei*s. But the claim of the United States had not, 
 at that time, been strengthened by the acquisition of that of Spain. 
 The Brf*'sh Plenipotentiaries, nnable, for that very reason, to sus- 
 tain the British claim against the United States, by the Nootka Con- 
 vention, did titen assert a right of absolute sovereignty, founded, as 
 they said, on p'ior drscovi:ries and Indian purchases, but which is no 
 longer aifirmetl. They had also declared, that the order given by the 
 British Government, but not yet carried into effect, for the restitu- 
 tion of Astoria, had issued under an erroneous impression that that 
 establishment had been captured, instead of having been, as they as- 
 serted, voluntarily transferred. For all those reasons, it appeared 
 necessary, that, in a Convention which established the 49th parallel 
 of latitude as the boundary between the two countries as far as the 
 Stony Mountains, some provision should be inserted, recognizing the 
 existence of the claims of the United States to the territory west of 
 those mountains. As there was no apparent reason why that boundary 
 should not, as the northern limit of Louisiana, have been extended 
 to the Pacific Ocean, absolute silence with respect to that territory, 
 might, under all tl>e circumstances of the case, hare bad a tendency 
 to weaken the claim of the United States. 
 
 A renewal of the agreement is no longer necessary for that object. 
 But, in addition to the reasons that were assigned in the course of the 
 negotiation, in favor of continuing it in force, there is still one pecu- 
 liar to the United States. They claim exclusive sovereignty over a 
 Territory, a considerable portion of which is occupied by British 
 traders, whom they could not dispossess without engaging in a war ; 
 whom, from their distance and other causes, they are not at this time 
 prepared to remove. It is certainly more eligible that those persons 
 should remain on the territory of the United States, by virtue of a 
 compact, and with their consent, than in defiance of their authority. 
 Although the prospect of paving the way for a more complete and sa- 
 tisfactory agreement, has been one of the motives for concluding tbis^ 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 « 
 
 Convention, no commitment has taken place in that respect. And the 
 further observations which I have to submit on that topic^ having no 
 immediate connexion with the temporary continuance of the existing 
 agreement, will be the subject of a separate despatch. 
 I have the honor to be, 
 Respectfully, sir, 
 
 Your moMt obedient servant, 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN. 
 
 PROTOCOL of the Jirst Conference of the »9merican and British PU' 
 nipotentiarieSf lield at the Foreign Offi-cCf on the \5th oj Jf&oemhery 
 1826. , 
 
 Present: — Mr. Gallatin, 
 Mr. HusKissoN, 
 Mr. Addington. 
 
 After the communication of the respective full powers, it was agreed 
 that the negotiations should be conducted, as in 1824, by conference 
 and protocol, each party being at liberty to annex to the protocol any 
 written statement which he might think e^^pedient. The Pleni|ioten< 
 tiaries then agreed to take up, in the first place, the subject of terri- 
 torial claims west of the Rooky Mountains. 
 
 After some general discussion, the British Plenipotentiaries observ- 
 ed, that a proposal of settlement, on that subject, having been offered 
 on the part of Great Britain, during the course of the negotiations of 
 1824, which proposal had been taken by the American Plenipotentiary 
 for reference to his Government, they presumed that Mr. Gallatin was 
 I prepared to give an answer to that, or to offer some tiew proposal. 
 
 The American Plepiijiotentiary stated that the Government of the 
 [United States could not accede to the boundary line whicii had been 
 offered by Great Britain, but that, whilst insisting on the forty-ninth 
 parallel of latitude, he was authorized to substitute for the proposal - 
 made by Mr. Rush, in 1824, which must be considered withdrawn, 
 another, with a new condition, which would evince the earnest desire 
 I of the United States to arrange the subject of difference ; and he ac- 
 cordingly offered the annexed article A. 
 
 This article the British Plenipotentiaries took, without further ob- 
 servation, for reference to their Government. 
 
 Adjourned to Wednesday, the 22d instant, at two o'clock. ^ •♦ 
 
 A true copy. 
 
 W. B. Lawrence, 8ec''y of Legation, ^ • 
 
 m 
 
 . >•■ 
 
 Article A. — Offered by the ^American Plmipotentiary. 
 
 It is agreed that the boundary line, between the territories claimed 
 by the United States, and those claimed by his Britannic Majesty, 
 west of the Stony Mountains, shall be drawn due west from the said 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 m' 
 
 ^4 
 
 "i .ii.i. 
 
 mountains, where the boundary lino agreed on by the second articfe 
 of the Convention of London, of 20th of Octobor, 1818, terminates, 
 along the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, to the Pacific ocean. 
 If the said lino shall cross the great northwesterninost branch of the 
 Columbia river, marked in the maps as McGillivray's river, or any 
 of tlie other branches of the Columbia river, at a place or places from 
 which the said McGillivray*s river, or any such other branch of the 
 Columbia river, is navigable to the main last mentioned river, the na- 
 vigation of the said McGilIivray*s riv<?r, and of any such other brandi 
 or branches, to the Columbia river, and of the Columbia river itself, 
 to the ocean, shall be prpctually free to the subjects of Great Britain, 
 in common with the citizens of the United States. The high contract- 
 ing parties shall adopt measures in concert to have the said boundary 
 line ascertained, within fifteen years from the dale of the signature of 
 this Convention, and the right of navigation shall, in the mean time, 
 be enjoyed ; but, if it shall be found that neither the said McGilli- 
 vray's river, nor any of the other branches of the Columbia river, is 
 navigable by boats, from where the boundary line crosses them to the 
 main Columbia river, the navigation of the said main river, and of its 
 branches, within the limits of the United States, shall cease to be free 
 to^the subjects of Great Britain. It is further specially agreed, that 
 neither of the high contracting Powers, their respective citizens or 
 subjects, shall, henceforward, form any settlements within the limits 
 assigned by the boundary line aforesaid to the other ; it being, at the 
 same time, understood, that any such settlement, already formed by 
 the citizens or subjects of either party, within the limits of the other, 
 shall continue to be occupied and enjoyed, at the pleasui'e of the pre- 
 sent occupants, without let or hindrance of any kind, until the expira- 
 tion of the term of ten years from the date hereof, and no longer. 
 The provisions of the third article of the Convention of London, of 
 the 20th of October, 1818, shall, in every other respect, continue in 
 force for the said term of ten years : at the end of which term, the 
 citizens and subjects of the two parties shall, in trading with the na- 
 tives, and in the pursuit of game and fur, be restricted to the side of 
 the boundary line of their respective countries. 
 
 A true copy. /r»! 
 
 „^ W. B. Lawrence, Sec^y of Legation: - 
 
 :■ : 
 
 ■^c 
 
 V-V 
 
 PROTOCOL of the second Conference of the Jinierican and British I 
 Plenipotentiaries, held at the Board of Trade, on the HZd of JVovem- 
 6er, 1826. .«• ' \-<.i^^-^-> %.,:-v -, '. 
 
 Present: — Mr. Galiatikt, -^^ « 
 
 Mr. AoDiNGToy, * 
 
 Mr. HusKissoN. -' -^^ 
 
 The protocol of the preceding conference was read over and signed. 
 
 The subject of the territorial claims on tlie coast of America west 
 
 of the Rocky Mountains, was resumed ; and, after some general dis- 
 
[Doc. No. i99.] 
 
 45 
 
 eussioii, in which the arguments rcsiiectivcly employed at the preced- 
 ing ronfi^i'ence were further developed on both sides, the further con- 
 sideration of the subject was postponed, by mutual agreement, to the 
 next meeting of the Plenipotentiaries. 
 Adjourned to Friday, the 1st of December. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN, 
 W. HUSRISSON, 
 H. U. ADDlNaxON. 
 A true copy. . 
 
 W, rf. Lawrence, 
 
 Secretary of Legation. 
 
 PROTOCOL of the third Conference between the American and British 
 Flenipotentiaries, held at the Board of Trade, on the ist December, 
 1826. 
 
 Present : — Mr. Gallatin, 
 Mr. HvsKissoN, 
 Mr. Addington. , 
 
 The British Pleniimtentiaries took up the subject of the article of 
 settlement annexed by the American Plenipotentiary to the protocol 
 of the first conference, and declared that, since, in that article, the 
 49th parallel of north latitude was still insisted on by the United 
 States as the boundary line, the said article was accordingly declined 
 on the part of Great Britain. 
 
 Notwithstanding a declaration on the part of the American Plent- 
 potentiary. that he had no authority to depart from the basis of the 
 49th parallel of latitude, as abovementioned, yet as it had been stated 
 by him, in the course of the discussion, that the line proposed by Great 
 Britain, viewed without regard to the question of right, and merely as 
 a boundary, founded on convenience, would be inadmissible, since it 
 left no port, fitted for large ships, to the United States, whilst the 
 whole nnrthera coast of the territory was amply supplied with such ; 
 and the United States could never agree to a line which would notgive 
 them a share in such ports— ^the British Plenipotentiaries, in order 
 to evince the earnest desire of their Government to afford every fa- 
 cility to the final adjustment of the question of boundary, submitted 
 the following terms of accommodation, with a view to their reference 
 to the American Government : 
 
 « That, considering that the possession of a safe and commodious 
 port on the Northwest Coast of America, fitted for the reception of 
 large ships, might be an object of great interest and importance to 
 the United States, and that no such port was to be found between the 
 42(1 degree of latitude and the Columbia river, Great Britain, in still 
 adhering to that river as a basis, was willing so far to modify her for- 
 mer proiwsal, as to concede, as far as she was concerned, to the 
 
^ (t,i 
 
 lii!!' 
 
 !:| 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 
 m 
 
 m'im 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 ^■1:' 
 
 ,11 I 
 
 iNill 
 
 :■( 
 
 ^ [Uoc. No. 199.] , 
 
 United States, tlu» 'possession of Port Discovery, a most valuable 
 harbor on the soutliem coast of De Fuca'fi Inlet j and to annex tbereto 
 all that tract of country comprised within a line to be drawn from 
 Cape Flattery, along the southern shore of Dc Fuca's inlet, to Point Wil- 
 son, at the northwestern extremity of Admiralty Inlet ; from thence, 
 along tlie western shore of that inlet, across the entrance of Hood's 
 Jnlet, to the point of land forming the northeastern extremity of tlie 
 said inlet ; from thence, along the eastern shore of that inlet, to the 
 southern extremity of the same ; from thence, direct, to the southern 
 point of Gray's Harbor ; from thence, along the shoi-e of the Pacific, 
 to Cape Flattery, as beforomentioned. 
 
 ■ "They were further willing to stipulate, that no works should, at 
 any time, be erected at the entrance of the river Columbia, or upon 
 the banks of the same, that might be calculated to impede or hinder 
 the free navigation thereof by the vessels or boats of either party." 
 . The American Plenipotentiary, considering this proposal as totally 
 inadequate, and having declined even referring it to his Government, 
 the British Plenipotentiaries, at the same time that they left the said 
 proposal on the protocol, protested againt the offer of concession so 
 made, being ever taken in any way to prejudice the claims of Great 
 Britain, included in her proposal of 1824 ; and declared that the offer 
 now made, was considered by the Britisii Government, as not called 
 for by any just comparison of the grounds of those claims, and of the 
 counter claim of the United S*^ates ; but rather as a sacrifice which the 
 British Government had consented to make with a view to obviate all 
 evils of future difference in respect to the territory west of the Rocky 
 Mountains. 
 
 llie proposition having, however, failed, they informed the Ameri- 
 can Plenipotentiary that, at a subsequent conference, they should be 
 prepared to submit a proposal for the i-encwal, for a fresh term of years, 
 and in a separate form, of the provision relative to the territory in 
 question, contained in the third article of the Convention of 1818. 
 
 The American Plenipotentiary observed, that tiie proposal contained 
 in the article presented by him at the first conference, and declined on 
 the part of Great Britain, had also been made solely with a view to 
 terminate, by an amicable agreement, all differences on that subject ; 
 and that he likewise protested against that proposal being ever taken 
 in any way to prejudice the claims of the United States, as heretofore 
 stated. 
 Adjourned to Wednesday, tlie 6th of December. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN, 
 W. HUSKISSON. 
 H. U. ADDINGTON. 
 A true copy. -. ; "^ 
 
 W. B. Lawrence, /' ■# ' 
 
 Secretary of Legation. "^ ' * " ; 
 
 X9^' 
 
 •*^ ' 
 
[Doc. Wo. 109.] 
 
 4T 
 
 PROTOCOL of the fourth Conference of the Mierican and British Pie- 
 nipotentiarieSf held at the Board of Trade, on the 6th qf Beeember, 
 1826. ' 
 
 Present : — Mr. Gallatin, , 
 Mr. HusKissoN, 
 Mr. Addington. 
 
 The protocol of the preceding conference was read over and signed. 
 
 The subject of a renewal of the article of the Convention of 1818, 
 which provides for a joint occupancy of the territory west of the Stony 
 Mountains, was resumed ; and, after some general discussion, the 
 American Plenipotentiary observed, that he had been authorized by 
 his instructions, in case no permanent boundary line could be agreed 
 on, to agree to the renewal of the article in question, for a term not ex- 
 ceeding ten years ; proposing only to omit so much of the article as 
 related to the claims of other nations to that territory, as the United 
 States did not admit that any other nation besides the two contracting 
 Powers had any such claim at this time-— those of Spain and Russia 
 having been settled since the year 1818. 
 
 Rut, as from, the discussion which had taken place, it might be ap- 
 prehended that the two Governments did not ])erliaps altogether agree 
 on the true meaning of that article, and on the extent of the obliga^ 
 tions imposed by it on both parties, he thought it essential that no 
 agreement should be concluded without a previous clear and mutual 
 understanding in that respect. He therefore believed it necessary 
 that he should refer the whole subject to his Government, with sucfat 
 new or explanatory provisions as tlie British Plenipotentiaricij might 
 deem it proper to propose. He could not himself offer any new pr«>- 
 posal for consideration, and would only say, that any that was calcu- 
 lated to prevent collision, and to preserve perfect harmony in that . 
 quarter, would be favorably entertained by the Government of the 4 
 United States, provided it did not impair or affect their rights, nor 
 prevent or impede their making settlements, and enjoying all the 
 benefits of the joint occupancy. 
 
 The British llenipotentiaries stated, in reply, tlnit it had never been 
 their intention to propose any arrangement which should not place the 
 citizens of the United States upon an equal footing with the subjects of 
 Great Britain, in respect to the territory in question, so long as it con- 
 tinued open to the exercise of those rights which were incident to a 
 state of joint occupancy. 
 
 The sole object of any additional stipulation which they might have 
 to suggest for the consideration of the American Plenipotentiary, would 
 be to guard against possible misunderstanding in respect to the nature 
 and consequences of any acts that might be done in that territory by 
 cither party, whilst liable to be so occupied. 
 
 The British Plenipotentiaries added, that they should certainly feel 
 no objection to furnish the American Plenipotentiary with a full and 
 explicit statement of the claims which Great Britain makes, and of the 
 obligations by which she considers herself bound in respect to that 
 territory. 
 
4a 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 .,1 
 
 ; 1 
 I 
 
 )! 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 t ■... 
 
 ;• »l |H . ' 
 
 m 
 
 The British Plenipotentiaries submitted to tlie American Plenipo- 
 tentiary, whether, in renewing the thii d article of the Convention of 
 1 8 1 8, it might not be desirable to extend that renewal to a longer term 
 than ten years. They suggested twenty, or at least fifteen years, sub- 
 ject to the understanding that the two Governments should use their 
 best endeavors within that period to adjust their present differeuces 
 in respect to the boundary :o be drawn between them in the territories 
 in question. . 
 
 .*^ ALBERT GALLATIN, 
 . , V . W. HUSKISSON, 
 
 . V H. U. AUDliNGTON. 
 
 A true copy : * 
 
 W, B. Lawrence, , . . 
 
 Secretary of Legation. ?'!.,. ;•» i.. 
 
 PROTOCOL of the Jifth Conference between the American and Bri' 
 tish Plenipotentiaries, held o' the Board of Trade, on the llthof 
 D'ecember, 1826. 
 
 Present: — Mr. Gallatin, . • ^^*. 
 
 Mr. HUSKISSON, .'.iw: >*«*' ,'»##■ ■v.. 
 
 Mr. Addington. '^■■^ .-i'-^t^^^ ■^y - 
 
 The protocol of the preceding conference was read dvcr and signed. 
 
 Circumstances having prevented the British Plenipotentiaries from 
 submitting, as they had proposed, at this conference, a project of Con- 
 vention for the renewal of the provision of the Convention of 1818, 
 relative to th*^ country west of the Roi^ky Mountains, as alluded to in 
 the preceding pnitocol, tlie subject of adjustment of boundary, under 
 the fifth article of t^ie treaty of Ghent, was entered upon by the Pleni- 
 potentiaries. 
 
 After some general conversation respecting the expediency of refer- 
 ring to foreign arbitration, as provided by that treaty, the difTerences 
 which had arisen on that subject, as well as the mode of regulating that 
 reference, it was agreed to postpone the further consideration of this 
 matter to a future conference, in order to give time for further investi- 
 gation of several points connected with it. 
 
 The American Plenipotentiary announced his having received au> 
 thority from his Government to treat concerning the renewal, for a 
 further term of ten years, of the Commercial Convention of 1815, con- 
 cluded between the United States and Great Britain. 
 
 Adjourned to Saturday, I6th of December. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN, 
 W. HUSKISSON, 
 H. U. ADDIJNGTON. 
 A true copy. 
 
 W. B. Lawrence, 
 
 Secretary of Legatioih 
 
 ;!lr 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 40 
 
 PROTOCOL of the sixth Conference between the ^American and 
 British Plenipotentiariea» held at the Board of Trade, on the I6th 
 of December, 1826. 
 
 Present — Mr. Gallatin, •» "" ' . 
 
 Mr. HrsKis»0N, • 
 
 - "" Mr. Addington. . • ' 
 
 The protocol of the preceiling conference was read over and signed. 
 The British Plenipotentiaries submitted, and annexed to the proto- 
 col, the project of a convention, (A) as alluded to in their preceding 
 conferences, for the renewal, for a fresh term of fifteen years, from 
 the date thereof, of the provisioti relative to the country west of the 
 Rocky Mountains, which was contained in the Convention of London 
 of 1818. This project they accompanied with a statement (B) also 
 annexed to the protocol of the claims and views of Great Britain re- 
 lative to that country. 
 
 The American Plenipotentiary took both the abovementioned pa- 
 pers for reference to his Government, and intimated his intention of 
 annexing to the protocol of the next conference, a counter-statement of 
 the claims ami views of the United States relative to the same country. 
 Adjourned. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN, 
 . W. HUSKISSON, 
 
 • .., H. U. ADDINGTON. 
 
 A true copy. - ' , ? 
 
 W. B. Lawrence, ' -.^ ■ .«'-4::.i:> ;t-i 
 
 Secretary of Legation. '- ,'"*!• 
 
 ^■ 
 
 Draft of Convention between Great Britain and the United States, pro- 
 posed by Lie British Plenipotentiaries. 
 
 Whereas, by the third article of the Convention concluded in Lon- 
 don, on the thirtieth of October, eighteen hundred and eighteen, be- 
 tween his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, it was 
 provided that any country that might be claimed by either of the con- 
 tracting parties, on the Northwest Coast of America, should be free and 
 ojien, for the term of ten years frorti the date of the signature of that 
 Convention, to tlie subjects and citizens of the two Powers, any terri- 
 torial claim which either party might have to any part of such country 
 being mutually reserved : His Britannic Majesty and the United 
 States, considering that the term for which the above provision was 
 to remain in force, is now not far from its expiration, and being 
 equally desirous to preclude all danger of misunderstanding between 
 themselves, with respect to the said country, have detertnined to re- 
 new the said provision ; for which purpose, they have respectively 
 named Plenipotentiaries to treat and agies respecting the 8am« ; that 
 ? 
 
#» 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 'y 
 
 t- 
 
 IS tu aay — His Britannic M»u<:sty, the right hunurable William Hun- 
 kisson, &c. &c. &c. and Henry Unwin Addington, £sq., and th« 
 United States, Albert Oallatin, who have agreed tn and concluded the 
 following articles : i 
 
 Ahticlk 1. 
 
 .* 
 
 It is agreed, that any country which may be claimed by either of 
 tlie*contracting parties, on^tlie Northwest Coast of America, westward 
 of the Rocky Mountains, shall, together with its harbors, bays, creeks, 
 and rivers, be free and open for the term of fifteen years, from the 
 date of the ratification of the jirescnt Convention, to the vessels, sub- 
 jects, and citizens, of the two Powers ; it being well understood that 
 this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim 
 which either of tlie contracting parties may have to any part of the 
 said country, nor shall it be taVen to affect the claims of any other 
 Power or State to any pwt of the said country ; the only object of 
 the high contracting parties, in conchiding this ConTention, being to 
 prevent dispatos and difTerenccA behvoen tliemselves. 
 
 ■'v«>U 
 
 AuTH!r;B II. 
 
 For the more ufl'ectual prevention of such disputes hnd diflei*ences. 
 it is further agreed, that, during the said term of fifteen years, neither 
 of the contracting parties shall assume or exercise any right of ex- 
 clusive sovereignty or dominion over any part of tltc said country ; 
 nor shall any settlement whicti may now exist, or which may be here- 
 after formed therein, by either party, during the said term of fifteen 
 veal's, be, at any time, adduced in support, or furtiierance of any 
 claim to such sovereignty or dominion. 
 
 iMiii.;,' 
 
 *;i:.:l 
 
 British Statemeni annexed to the Vroliycol aj' the Siocth Conference. 
 
 The Government of Great Britain, in proposing to renew, for a 
 further term of years, the third article of the Convention of 1818, 
 respecting the territory on the Northwest Coast of America, west of 
 the Rocky Mountains, i*cgrcts that it has been found impossible, in 
 the present negotiation, to agree upon a line of boundary, which 
 should separate those parts of that territory, which might hencefor- 
 ward be occupied or settled by the subjects of Great Britain, from the 
 parts which would remain open to occupancy and settlement by the 
 United States. 
 
 To establish such a boundary must be the ultimate object of both 
 countries. With this object in contemplation, and from a persuasion 
 that a part of the difficulties which have hitherto prevented its attain- 
 ment, is to be attributed to a misconception, on the part of the United 
 states, of the claims and views of Great Britain, in regard to the 
 territory in question, the British Plenipotentiaries deem it advisahlt 
 
[Dor. No. 199.1 
 
 SI 
 
 to bring under the notice of the American PlenipotentiRry a full and 
 explicit exposition of those claims and views. 
 
 As preliminary to this discussion, it is highly desirable to mark« 
 distinctly, the broad difference between the nature of the rights claimed 
 by Great Britain, and those asserted by the United States, in aspect 
 to the territory in question. 
 
 Over a large portion of that territory, namely, from the forty^se 
 cond degree to the forty-ninth degi*ee of north latitude, the United 
 States claim full and exclusive sovereignty. 
 
 Great Britain clainu no exclusive savereigniy over any portion ot 
 that territory. Her present claim, not in respect to any part, but to 
 the whole, is limited to a right of joint occupancy, in common with 
 other States, leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abeyance. < 
 
 In other words, the pretensions of the United States tend to the 
 ejection of all other nations, and, among the rest, of Great Britain, 
 from all right of settlement in the district claimed by the United 
 States. - — - 
 
 Tiie pretensions of Great Britain, on the contrary, tend to the mere 
 maintenance of her own rights, in resistance to the exclusive charac- 
 ter of the pretensions of the United States. 
 
 Having thus stated the nature of the respective claims of the two 
 parties, tlie British Pleniiiotentiaries will now examine the grounds 
 on which those claims are founded. 
 
 The claims of the United States are urged upon three grounds : 
 
 ist. As resulting from their own proper right. 
 
 2dly. As resulting from a right derived to them from Spain ; that 
 Power having, by the treaty of Florida, concluded with the United 
 States in 1819» ceded to the latter all their rights and claims on the 
 western coast of America north of forty-second degree. 
 
 3dly. As resulting from a right derived to them from France, to 
 whom the United States succeeded, by treaty, in possession of the pro 
 vince of Lousiana. 
 
 The first right, or right proper of the United States, is founded on the 
 alleged discovery of the Columbia river, by Mr. Gray, of Boston, 
 who, in 1792, entered that river, and explored it to some distance from 
 its mouth. 
 
 To this arc added the first exploration by Lewis and Clarke, of a 
 main branch of the same river from its source downwards : and, also, 
 the alleged priority of settlement, by citizens of the United States, of 
 the country in the vicinity of the same river. 
 
 The second right, or right derived from Spain, is founded on the 
 alleged prior discovery of the region in dispute by Spanish navigators, 
 of whom the chief were, 1st, Cabrillo, who, in 154S, visited thatcoast 
 as far as 44° north latitude. Sd, De Fuca, who, as it is affirmed, in 
 1598, entered the Straits known by his name, in latitude 49°. Sd. - 
 Guelli, who, in 158S, is said to have pushed his researches as high as 
 57° north latitude. 4th, Perez, and others, who, between the years 
 1774 and 1792, visited Nootka Sound and the adjacent coasts. 
 
 The third right derived from the cession of Louisiana to the United 
 
 r^ ■^ 
 
r I. 
 
 m 
 
 [Doc. Xo. 19U.] 
 
 M 
 
 
 nil' ,:,! i 
 
 i. i 
 
 
 '■I'l.! 
 
 1 HI. 
 
 
 :['^^': 
 
 y;' 
 
 I :''iL 
 
 States, is founded oh the assninption that tliat province, its bounda- 
 ries never having been exiietly defined longitudinally, may fairly be 
 'asserted to extend westwai-d nct'oss the Rocky mountains, to the shoro 
 of the Pacific. 
 
 Before the merits of these respective claims are considered, it is 
 necessary to observe that one only out of the three can be valid. 
 
 They are, in fact, claims obviously incompatible the one with the 
 other. If, for example, the title of Spain by first discovery, or the 
 title of France, as the original possessor of Louisiana, be valid, then 
 must one or the other of those kingdoms have been the lawful posses- 
 sor of that territory, at the moment when the United States claim to 
 have discovered it. If, on the other hand, the Americans were the. 
 first discoverers, there is necessarily an end of the Spanish claim ; 
 and if priority of discovery constitutes the title, that of France falls 
 equally to the ground. • Ix ■■■ 
 
 Upon the question, how far prior discovery constitutes a legal claim 
 to sovereignty, the law of nations is somewhat vague and undefined. 
 It is, however, admitted by the most approved writers, that mere ac- 
 cidental discovery, unattended by exploration — by formally taking 
 possession in the name of the discoverer's sovereign — by occupation 
 and settlement, more or less permanent — by purchase of the territory — 
 or receiving^the sovereignty from the natives — constitutes the lowest 
 degree of title, and that it is only in pro])ortion as first discovery is 
 followed by any or all of these acts, that such title is strengthened and 
 confirmed. 
 
 The rights conferred by discovery, therefore, must be discussed on 
 their own merits. 
 
 But before the British Plenipotentiaries proceed to compare the re- 
 lative claims of Great Britain and the United States, in this respect, 
 it will be advisable to dispose of the two other grounds of right, put 
 forward by the United States. 
 
 The second ground of claim, advanced by the United States, is the 
 cession made by Spain to the United States, by the treaty of Florida, 
 in 1819. 
 
 If the conflicting claims of Great Britain and Spain, in respect to 
 all that part of the coast of North America, bad not been finally ad- 
 Justed by the convention of Nootka, in the year 1790, and if all the 
 arguments and pretensions, whether resting on priority of discovery, 
 or derived from any other consideration, had not been definitively set 
 at rest, by the signature of that convention, nothing would be more 
 easy than to demonstrate that tlie claims of Great Britain to that coun- 
 try, as opposed to those of Spain, were so far from visionary, or arbi- 
 tai'ily assumed, that th* y established more than a parity of title to the 
 possession of the country in question, either as against Spain, or any 
 other nation. 
 
 Whatever that title may have been, however, either on tlie part of 
 Great Britain, or on the part of Spain, prior to the convention of 
 1790, it was from thenceforward no longer to be traced in vague nar- 
 ratives of discoveries, several of them admitted to be apocryphal, but 
 in the text and stipulations of that convention itself. 
 
 4t ' li 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 S3 
 
 By tliat convention it was agreed that all parts of the Northwest- 
 ern Coast of America^ not already occupied at that time by either of 
 the contracting parties, should thenceforward be equally open to the " 
 subjects of both, for all purposes of commerce and settlement ; tho 
 sovereignty remaining in abeyance. 
 
 In this stipulation, as it has been already stated, all tracts of coun- 
 try claimed by Spain and Great Britain, or accruing to either, in 
 wliatevcr manner, were incltidcd. 
 
 Tho rights of Spain on that coast were, by the treaty of Florida, iu 
 1819, conveyed by Spain to tlie United States. With those rights the 
 United States necessarily succeeded to the limitations by which they 
 were defined, and the obligations under which they were to be exer- 
 cised. From those obligations and limitations, as contracted towards 
 Great Britain, Great Britain cannot be expected gratuitously to re- 
 lease those countries, merely because the rights of the party original-, 
 ly bound, have been transferred to a third Power. 
 
 The third ground of claim, of the United States, rests on the right 
 supposed to be derived from the cession to them of Louisiana by France. 
 
 In arguing this branch of the question, it will not be necessary to 
 examine in detail the very dubious point of the assumed extent of that 
 province, since, by tho treaty between France and Spain, of 1763, tlie 
 whole of that territory, defined or undefined, real or ideal, was ceded 
 by France to Spain, and, consequently, belonged to Spain, not only in 
 1790, when the convention of Nootka was signed between Great Bri- 
 tain and Spain, but, also, subsequently, in 1793, the period uf Gray's 
 discovery of the mouth of the Columbia. 11'^ then, Louisiana embrac- 
 ed the country west of the Rocky mountains, to the south of the 49th 
 parallel of latitude, it must have embraced the Columbia itself, which 
 that parallel intersects : and, consequently, Gray's discovery must 
 have been made in a country avowedly already appropriated to Spain ; 
 and, if so appropriated, necessarily included, with all other Spanish 
 possessions and claims in that quarter, in the stipulations of the 
 Nootka convention. 
 
 Even if it could be shown, therefore, that the district west of the 
 Rocky Mountains, was within the boundaries of Louisiana, that cir- 
 cumstance would, in no way, assist the claim of the United States. 
 
 It may, nevertheless, be worth while to expose, in a few words, the 
 futility of the attempt to include that district within those boundaries. 
 
 For this purpose, it is only necessary to refer to the original grant 
 of Louisiana, made to De Crozat, Ly Louis XIV, shortly after its 
 discovery by La Salle. That province is therein expressly described 
 as "the country drained by the waters entering, directly or indirectly, 
 into the Mississippi.'* Now, unless it can be shown, that any of the 
 tributaries of the Mississippi cross the Rocky Mountains from west 
 to east, it is difficult to conceive how any part of Louisiana can be 
 found to tho west of that ridge. 
 
 There remains to be considered the first gt'ound of claim advanced 
 by the United States to the territory in question, namely, that found- 
 ed on their own proper right, as first discovei'ers, and occupiers of 
 that territory. 
 
 I 
 
^ ', 
 
 S4 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 imi 
 
 *■ !!'■ 
 
 'H ■•; 
 
 V iHU 
 
 .•IS I' ]-' 
 
 If the discovery of the country in question, or rather the mere en- 
 trance into the mouth of the Columbia, by a private American citizen, 
 be, as ttic United States assert, (alttiough Great Britain is far from 
 admitting the correctness of the assertion,) a valid ground of national 
 and exclusive claim to all the country situated between the 42d and 
 49th parallels of latitude, then must any preceding discovery of the 
 same country, by an individual of any other nation, invest such nation 
 ^vith a more valid, because a prior claim to thai country. 
 
 Now, to set aside, for tlie present, Drake, Cook, and Vancouver, 
 who all of them either took possession o{^ or touched at, various points 
 of the coast in question. Great Britain can show, that, in 1788, that 
 is four years before Gray entered the mouth of the Columbia river, 
 Mr. Meares, a Lieutenant of the Royal Navy, who had been sentl>y 
 the East India Company on a trading expedition to the Northwest 
 Coast of America, had already minutely explored that coast, from the 
 49* to the 45° north latitude ; had taken formal possession of the 
 Straits of Dc Fuca, in the name of his sovereign ; had purchased land, 
 trafficked, SitiA formed treaties with the natives ; and had actuaUy en- 
 tered the Bay of the Columbia, to the northern headland of which he 
 gave the name of Cape Disappointmentf a name which it bears to this 
 day. 
 
 Dixon, Scott, Duncan, Strange, and other private British traders, 
 had also visited these shores and countries several years before Gray; 
 but the single example of Meares suffices to quash Gray's claim to 
 prior discovery. To the other navigators abovementioned, therefore, 
 it is unnecessary to refer more particularly. 
 
 It may be worth while, however, to observe, with regard to Meares, 
 that his account of his voyages was published in London in Jiugust^ 
 1790 ; that is, two years before Gray is even pretended to have en- 
 tered the Columbia. 
 
 To that account are appended, first, extracts from his log book ; 
 secondly, maps of the coasts and harbors which he visited, in which 
 every part of the coast in question, including the bay of the Columbia, 
 {into which the log expressly states that Meares entered,) is minutely 
 laid down, its delineation tallying, in almost every particular, with 
 Vancouver's subsequent survey, and with the description found in all 
 the best maps of that part of the world, adopted at this moment ; 
 thirdly, the account in question actually contains an engraving, dated 
 in August, 1790, of the entrance of De Fuca's Straits, executed after 
 a design taken in June, 1788, by Meares himself. 
 
 With these physical evidences of authenticity, it is as needless to 
 contend for, as it is impossible to controvert, the truth of Meares' 
 statement. 
 
 It was only on the I7th of September, 1788, that the Washington, 
 commanded by Mr. Gray, first made her appearance at Nootka. 
 
 If, therefore, any claim to these countries, as between Great Britain 
 and the United States, is to be deduced from priority of the discovery, 
 the above exposition of dates and facts suffices to establish that claim 
 in favor of Great Britain, on a basis too firm to be shaken. 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 «5 
 
 It must, indeed, be admitted, that Mr. Gray, finding himself in the 
 bay formed by the discharge of the waters of the Columbia into the 
 Pacific, was the first to as(;ertain that this bay formed the outlet of a 
 great river, a discovery which had escaped Lieutenant Meares, wh«n» 
 in 1788, four years before, he entered the same bay. 
 
 But can it be seriously urged that this single step in the progress of 
 discovery, not only wholly supersedes the prior discoveries, both of the 
 ba> and the coast by Lieutenant Meares, but equally absorbs the subse- 
 quent exploration of the river by Captain Vancovver, for near a hun- 
 dred miles above the point to which Mr. Gray's ship had proceeded, 
 the formal taking possession of it by that British navigator, in the name 
 of his Sovereign, and also all the other discoveries, explorations, and 
 temporary possession and occupation of the ports and harbors on the 
 coast, as well of the Pacific as within the Straits of De Fuca, up to the 
 49th parallel of latitude ? 
 
 This pretension, however, extraordinaiy as it is, does not embrace 
 the whole of the claim which the United States build upon the limited 
 discovery of Mr. Gray, namely, that the bay of which Cape Disap- 
 pointment is the northernmost headland, is, in fact, the embouchure 
 of a river. That mere ascertainment, it is asserted, confers on the 
 United States a title, in exclusive sovereignty, to the whole extent of 
 country drained by such river, and by all its tributary streams. 
 
 In iUi,, '01 1 of this very extraordinary pretension, the United States 
 allege '■< t >cedentof grants and charters accorded in former times 
 to com , " and individuals, by various European sovereigns, over 
 several parts of the American continent. Amongst other instances 
 are adduced the charters granted by Elizabeth, James 1st, Charles 
 2d, and George 2d, to sundry British subjects and associations, as 
 also the grant made by Louis 14th to De Crozat over the tract of 
 country watered by the Mississippi and its tributaries. 
 
 But can such charters be considered an acknowledged part of the 
 Law of Nations ? Were they any thing more, in fact, than a cession 
 to the grantee or grantees, of whatever rights the grantor might sup- 
 pose himself to possess, to the exclt'^ion of other subjects of the same 
 sovereign ? Charters binding and restraining those only who were 
 within the jurisdiction of the grantor, and of no force or validity, 
 against the subjects of other States, until recognized by treaty, and 
 thereby becoming a part of international law. 
 
 Had the United States thought proper to issue, in 1790, by virtue of 
 their national authority, a charter granting to Mr. Gray the whole 
 extent of country wate»*ed, directly or indirectly, by the river Colum- 
 bia, such a charter would, no doubt, have been valid in Mr. Gray's 
 favor, as against all other citizens of the United States. But can it 
 be supposed, that it would have been acquiesced in by cither of the 
 Powers — Great Britain and Spain — which, in that same year, were 
 preparing to contest by arms the possession of the very country which 
 would have been the subject of such a grant ? 
 
 If the right of sovereignty over the territory in question, accrues 
 to the United States by Mr. Gray's discovery, how happens it that 
 
 
56 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 
 . * 
 
 1:1 '' 
 
 
 I 111 
 
 '1 \J/ 
 
 » i, 
 
 It 
 
 .1' I 
 
 '•I:- . 
 
 
 ■ri 
 
 
 they never protested against the violence done to that right by the 
 two Powers, who, by the convention of 1790, regulated thoir^ respect- 
 ive rights, in and over a district so belonging, as it is now asserted, 
 to the United States ? 
 
 This claim of the United States to the territory drained by the Co- 
 lumbia, and its tributary streams, on the ground of one of theircitizens 
 having been the first to discover the entrance of that river, has been 
 here so far entered into, not because it is considered to be necessarily 
 entitled to notice, since the whole country watered by the Columbia 
 falls within the provisions of the convention of 1790, but because the 
 doctrine above alluded to has been put forward so broadly, and with 
 such confidence by the United States, that Great Britain considered it 
 equally due to herself and to other Powers to enter her protest against it 
 
 The United States further pretend, that their claim to the country in 
 question is strengthened and confirmed by the discovery of the sources 
 of the Columbia, and by the exploration of its course to the sea by 
 Lewis and Clarke, in 1805-6. 
 
 In reply to this allegation, Great Britain affirms, and can distinctly 
 prove, that, if not before, at least in the same and subsequent years, 
 her Northwestern Trading Company had, by means of their agent, 
 Mr. Thomson, already established thoir posts among the Flat Head 
 and Kootanie tribes, on the head waters of the northern or main branch 
 of the Columbia, and were gradually extending them down the princi- 
 pal stream of that river ; thus giving to Great Britain, in this particu- 
 lar, again, as in tiie discovery of the mouth of the river, a title to parity 
 at least, if not priority of. discovery, as opposed to the United States. 
 It was from those posts, that having heard of the American establish- 
 ment forming in 1811, at tlie mouth of the river, Mr. Thomson has- 
 tened thither, descending the river, co ascertain the nature of that es- 
 tablishment. 
 
 Some stress having been laid by the United States, on the restitu- 
 tion to them of Fort George by the British, after the termination of 
 the last war, which restitution they i*epresent as conveying a virtual 
 acknowledgment by Great Britain of the title of the United States to 
 the country in which that post was situated ; it is desirable to state, 
 somewhat in detail, the circumstances attending that restitution. 
 
 In the year 1815, a demand for the restoration of Fort George was 
 first made to Great Britain, by the American Government, on the 
 plea that the first article of the Treaty of Ghent stipulated the res- 
 titution to the United States of all posts and places whatsoever, taken 
 from them by the British during the, war, in vhich description Fort 
 George (Astoria) was included. 
 
 For some time the British Government demurred to comply with 
 tlie demand of the United States, because they entertained doubts how 
 far it could be sustained by the construction of the treaty. 
 
 In the first place, the trading post, called Fort Astoria, (or Fort 
 George,) was not a national possession ; in the second place it was 
 not a military post ; and thirdly, it was never captured from the Ame- 
 ricans by the British. 
 
[Doc. No. 109.] 
 
 57 
 
 It was, in fact, conveyed in regular commercial transfer, and accom- 
 panied by a bill of sale for a sum of money, to the British company 
 who purchased it, by the American company, who sold it of their own 
 free tvill. 
 
 It is true, that a British sloop of war had, about that time, been sent 
 to take possession of that post, but she arrived subsequently to the 
 transaction abovementioned, between the two companies, and found 
 the British company already in legal occupation of their self-acquired 
 property. " 
 
 In consequence, however, of that ship having been sent out with 
 hostile views, although those views were not carried into effect, and in 
 order that not even the shadow of a reflection might be cast upon the 
 good faith of the British Government, the latter determined to give 
 the most liberal extension to the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, and, in 
 1818, the purchase which the British company had made in 1813, 
 was restored to the United States. 
 
 Particular care, however, was taken on this occasion, to prevent any 
 misapprehension as to the extent of the concession made by Great 
 Britain. 
 
 Viscount Castlereagh, in directing the British Minister at Washing- 
 ton to intimate the intention of the British Government to Mr. Adams, 
 then Secretary of State, uses these expressions, in a despatch dated 
 4th of February, 1818. 
 
 « Y^ou will oi^servc, that, whilst this Government is not disposed to 
 contest, with the American Government, the point of possession as it 
 «f()od in the Columbia river at the moment of the rupture, they are 
 not 2)repared to admit the validity of the title of the Oovernment of the 
 United States to this settlement. 
 
 « In signifying, therefore, to Mr. Adams, the full acquiescence of 
 << your Government in the re-occupatio»o/' the limited position, which 
 << the United States held in that river at the breaking out of the 
 '< war, you will, at the same time, assert, in suitable terms, the claim 
 << of Great Britain to that territory, upon which the American settle- 
 ^' ment must be considered as an encroachment.'' 
 
 This instruction was executed verbally by the person to whtmi it 
 ,was addressed. 
 
 The following is a transcript of the act by which the Fort was de- 
 ilivcred up by the British, into the hands of Mr. Prevost, the Ame- 
 I rican agent. 
 
 '< In obedience to the command of H. R. H. the Prince Regent, 
 '* signified in a despatch from the Right Honorable the Earl Bathurst, 
 *^ addressed to the partners or agents of the Northwest Company, 
 '< bearing date the 27th of January, 1818, and in obedience to asub- 
 -' '♦ sequent order, dated the 26th July, from W. H. Sheriff, Esq. Cap- 
 •< tain of H. M. ship Andromache : We, the undersigned, do, in con- 
 formity to the first article of the treaty of Ghent, restore to the 
 I" Government of the United States, through its agent, J. P. Pre- 
 vost, Esq. the settlement of Fort George on the Columbia river. 
 8 
 
 n 
 
rt'i' 
 
 11 .i.:-!ri 
 
 \]^WI 
 
 hi 
 
 i 
 
 1! 
 
 • 
 
 :1^:1: 
 
 -18 [IJoc. Xo. 199.] 
 
 << Given under out* lianilH in ttiiilicate, at Fort Georgei (Columbia 
 « River,) this 6th day of Octuber, 1 818. 
 
 '*F. HICKEY, 
 << Captain H. M. Ship Blossom. 
 •'J.KEITH, 
 . ■ V . . . . '* OftheJS*. W. Co." 
 
 Tlie following is the despatch from Earl Bathurst to the partners of 
 the North West Company, referred to in the above act of cession : 
 
 << Downing Street, ar/ZtJatmory, 1818. 
 
 << Intelligence having been received that the United States* sloop of 
 *< war Ontario has been sent by the American Government to esta- 
 << blish a settlement on the Columbia River, which was held by that 
 << State, on the breaking out of the last war, I am to acquaint you, 
 '< that it is the Prince Regent*s pleasure, {without however admitting 
 ** the right of that Government to the possession in question) that, 
 " in pursuance of the first article of the treaty of Ghent, due facility 
 « should be given to the re*ocrupation of the said settlement by the 
 « officers of the United States ; and I am to desire, that you would 
 <« contribute as much as lies in your power to the execution of His 
 ** Royal Highness's comtnands. 
 
 *' I have, &c. &c. 
 
 "BATHURST." 
 
 " To the partners or agents of the Northwest Company, residing on the Columbia 
 River." 
 
 , The above documents put the case of the restoration of Fort Astoria 
 in too clear a light to require further observation. 
 
 The case, then, of Great Britain, in respect to the country west of 
 the Rocky Mountains, is shortly this : 
 
 Admitting that the United States have acquired all the rights which 
 Spain possessed, up to the treaty of Florida, either in virtue of dis- 
 covery, or, as is pretended, in right of Louisiana, Great Britain main- 
 tains that the nature and extent of those rights, as well as of the 
 rights of Great Britain, arc fixed and defined by the Convention of I 
 Nootka ; that these rights are equal forbot'^ - ' 'ies ; and that, in suc- 
 ceeding to the rights of Spain, under tli^t "ention, the United 
 States must also Iiavc succeeded to the obligat mis which it impo.t;ed. 
 
 Admitting, further, the discovery of Mr. Gra^ to the extent already 
 stated. Great Britain, taking the whole line of \\e coast in question, 
 with its straits, harbors, and bays, has stronger cis ims, on the ground 
 of prior discovery, attended with acts of occupancy and settlement, 
 than the United States. 
 
 Whetlier, therefore, the United States rest their claims upon the 
 title of Spain, or upon that of prior discovery, or upon both, Great 
 Britain is entitled to place her claims at least upon a parity with those 
 of the United States. 
 
CBoc. No. IM.J 
 
 59 
 
 'Fort Astoria 
 
 It is a fact, admitted by the United States, tliat, with the exception 
 of the Columbia; river, there is no river which opens far into the iti' 
 teriorf on the whole western coast of the Pacific Ocean. 
 
 In the interior of the territory in question, the subjects of Great 
 Britain have had, for many ycar^l, numerous settlements and trading 
 posts ; several of these posts on the tributary streams of the Columbia^ 
 several upon the Columbia itself, some to the northward, and others 
 to the southward, of that river ; and they navigate flie Columbia as the 
 sole channel for the conveyance of their produce to the British sta- 
 tions nearest the sea, and for the shipment of it from thence to Great 
 Britain. It is also by the Columbia, and its tributary streams, that 
 these posts and settlements receive their annual supplies from Great 
 Britain. 
 
 In the wiiole of the territory in question, the citizens of th*) United 
 States have not a sinj^le settlement or trading post. They do not use 
 that river, either for the purpose of transmitting or receiving any pro- 
 duce of their own, to or from other parts of the world. 
 
 In this state of the relative rights of the two countries, and of the 
 relative exercise of those rights, the United States claim the exclusive 
 possession of both banks of the Columbia, and, consequently, that of 
 the river itself; offering, it Is true, to concede to British subjects a 
 conditional participation in that navigation, but subject, in any case, 
 to the exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United States. 
 
 Great Britain, on her part, offers to make the river the boundary ; 
 each country retaining the bank of the river contiguous to its own ter- 
 ritories ; and the navigation of it remaining for ever free, and upon a 
 footing of perfect equality to both nations. 
 
 To carry into effect this proposal, on our part. Great Britain would 
 have to give up posts and settlements south of the Columbia. On the 
 part of the United States, there could be no reciprocal withdrawing 
 from actual occupation, as thei>e is not, and never has been, a single 
 Amerioan citizen settled north of the Columbia. 
 
 The United States decline to accede to this proposal, even when 
 Great Britain has added to it the further offer of a most excellent har- 
 bor, and an extensive tract of country on the Straits of De Fuca — a 
 sacrifice tendered in the spirit of accommodation, and forthe sake of a 
 final adjustment of all differences, but which, having been made in 
 this spirit, is not to be considered as in any degree recognizing a 
 claim on the part of the United States, or as at all impairing the ex- 
 isting right of Great Britain over the post and territory in question. 
 
 Such being the result of the recent negotiation, it only remains for 
 Great Britain to maintain and uphold the qualified rights which she 
 now possesses over the whole of the territory in question. These rights 
 arc recorded and defined in the Convention ofNootka. 1'hey embrace 
 the right to navigate llie waters of those countries, the right to settle 
 in and over any part of them, and the right freely to trade with the in- 
 habitants and occupiers of tlie same. 
 
 These rights have been peaceably exorcised ever since the date of 
 that Convention ; that is, for a period of near forty years. Under that 
 
60 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.1 
 
 ji 
 
 Convention, valuable British interests have grown up in those coun< 
 tries. It is fully admitted that the United States possess the same 
 rights, although they have been exercised by them only in a single 
 instance, and have nut, since the year 18 is, been exercised at all. But 
 beyond these rights they possess none. 
 
 To the interests and establishments which British industry and en- 
 terprise have created, Great Britain owes protection. That protection 
 will be given, both a.s regards settlement and freedom of trade and 
 navigation, \vith every attention no^to infringe the co-ordinate rights 
 of the United States — it being the eai west desire of the British Govern- 
 ment, so long as the joint occupancy continues, to regulate its own ob- 
 ligations by the same rule which governs the obligations of any other 
 occupying party. 
 
 Fully sensible, at tlie same time, of the desirableness of a more de- 
 finite settlement, as between Great Britain and the United States, the 
 British Government will be ready, at any time, to terminate the pre- 
 sent state of joint occupancy by an agreement of delimitation; but such 
 arrangement only can be admitted as shall not derogate from the rights 
 of Great Britain, as acknowledged by treaty, nor prejudice the ad- 
 vantages which British subjects, under the same sanction, now enjoy 
 in that part of the world. 
 
 I' I 
 
 PROTOCOL of the seventh ConJ'erence of the American and British 
 Plenipotentiaries, held at the Board of I'rade, on the I9th Deceni' 
 her, 1826. 
 
 Present — Mr. Gallatin, 
 Mr. Addington. 
 
 The American Plenipotentiary delivered and annexed to the proto- 
 col the counter-statement of the claims and views of tlic United States 
 relative to the country west of the Rocky or Stony Mountains. 
 Adjourned. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN, 
 H. U. ADDINGTON. 
 A true copy. 
 
 W. B. Lawkejwce. 
 
 Secretary of Legation. 
 
 ^imerican Counter-statement annexed to the Protocol of the seventh 
 
 Conference. 
 
 The American Plenipotentiary has read with attention the exposi- 
 tion of the claims and views of Groat Britain, in regard to the terri- 
 tory west of the Rocky or Stony Mountains, annexed by the British 
 Plenipotentiaries to the protocol of the last conference; and assures 
 them that it will receive from his Government all the consideration to 
 which it is so justly entitled. 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 '41^' 
 
 ' the seventh 
 
 lie will not make any observations on that part of the exposition, 
 which, as explanatory of the views of the British Government in re- 
 fcrence to a continued joint occupancy, he can only refer to his Go- 
 vernment. The remarks he will now offer, are necessarily limited to 
 the respective claims of the two countries, and to the proposals for a 
 definitive arrangement which have been made by each party. 
 
 Great Britain claims no exclusive sovereignty over any portion of 
 the territory in question. Her claim extends to the whole, but is 
 limited to a right of joint occupancy in common with other States, 
 leaving the right '>^ "xclusive dominion in abeyance. She insists that 
 her'sand Spain's .itlicting claims were finally adjusted by tiie con- 
 vention of 5iiootka, in 1790; that all the arguments and pretensions, 
 whether resting upon priority of discovery, or derived from any 
 other consideration, were dejinitively set at rest by that convention ; 
 that, from its date, it was only in its text and stipulations that the 
 title, either on her part or on that of Spain, was to be traced ; and 
 that it was agreed by that convention, that all the parts of the North- 
 west Coast ol America, not previously occupied by either party, should 
 thenceforwanl be C(|ually open to the subjects of both, for all pur- 
 poses of commerce and settlement — the sovereignty remaining in 
 abeyance. 
 
 It is then declared, that, in reference either to the rights derived to 
 the United States from Spain, by virtue of the treaty of 1819, or to 
 that supposed to be derived from tlie acquisition of Louisiana, which 
 province did, in the year 1790, belong to Spain, tlie United States have, 
 with these rights, necessarily succeeded to the limitations by which 
 they were defined, and the obligations under which they were to be 
 exercised, in conformity to the stipulations of the Nootka Convention. 
 Whence it is generally inferred, that, whilst it is fully admitted that 
 the United States possess the same rights as Great Britain, over the 
 country in question, namely : to navigate its waters, to settle in any 
 partoHt, and freely to trade with the inhabitants and occupiers of the 
 same ; beyond these rights, the United States possessed none, and 
 that they cannot therefore claim exclusive sovereignty over any part 
 of the said territory. 
 
 It will, in the first place, be observed, that, admitting that conven- 
 tioji to be still in force, and of whatever construction it may be sus- 
 ceptible, this compact between Sjiain jind Great Britain could only 
 bind the parties to it, and can affect the claim of the United States so 
 far only as it is derived fi'om Spain. If, therefore, ihey have a claim 
 in right of tlieir own discoveries, explorations, and settlements, as this 
 cannot bo impaired by the Nootka Convention, it becomes indispensa- 
 bly necessary, in order to defeat such claim, to show a better prior 
 title on the part of Great Britain, derived from some other consider- 
 ation than the stipulations of that Convention. But, on examining 
 that instrument, it w ill be found to be apparently merely of a com- 
 mercial nature, and in no shape to affect tlie question of distinct juris- 
 diction and exclusive sovereignty. 
 
 It was agreed by that Convention, ''that the respective subjectM (»f 
 
to 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 i! i • 
 
 mW. 
 
 I i V 
 
 'nil: 
 
 
 
 iiil'l 
 
 ■f^ 
 
 itii 
 II 
 
 ii 
 
 I 
 
 
 <<ti.e two parties should not be disturbed or molested, eitiier in navi- 
 ** gating on carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, or in tlie 
 *^ iSouth Seas, or in landing on the coast of those seas, in places nut 
 <* already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on their commerce 
 <' with the natives of tlie country, orof making settlements there." And 
 
 further, ^<that in all places , wherever the subjects of either shall 
 
 *«havc made settlements since the month of April, 1789, or shall 
 <' hereafter make any, the subjects of the other shall have free access, 
 ** and shall carry on their trade without any disturbance or moles- 
 ♦« tation. 
 
 It Is difficult to believe, on reading those provisions, and recollect' 
 ing in what cause the Convention originated, that any other settle- 
 ments could have been contemplated than such as were connected with 
 the commerce to be carried on with the natives. Indeed, it is as be- 
 ing only of a commercial nature, that the Mootka Convention may be 
 positively asserted to be now in force ; the commercial treaties be- 
 tween Great Britain and Spain having, subsequent to the war which 
 had intervened, been alone renewed by the treaty of July, 1814. 
 
 Admitting, however, that the word ** settlement,"' was meant in its 
 most unlimited sense, it is evident that the stipulations had not for 
 object to settle the territorial claims of the parties, and had no con- 
 nexion with an ultimate partition of the country, for the purpose of 
 permanent colonization. 
 
 Those stipulations permitted promiscuous and intermixed settle- 
 ments every where, and over the whole face of the country, to the 
 subjects of both parties ; and even declared every such settlement, 
 made by either party, in a degree common to the other. Such a state 
 of things is clearly incompatible with distinct jurisdiction and sove- 
 reignty. The Convention, therefore, could have had Jio such object in 
 view, as to fix the relations of the contracting Powers in that respect. 
 On that subject it established or changed nothing, but left the parties 
 where it found them, and in jtossession of all such rights, whether de- 
 rived from discovery, or from any other consideration, as belonged to 
 each, to be urged by each, whenever the question of permanent and 
 separate possession and sovereignty came to be discussed between 
 them. 
 
 It is, indeed, expressly admitted that the Convention provided for 
 commerce and settlements, leaving the soverdgnUj in abeyance. And 
 Great Britain, at this time, claims only a riglit of joint occupancy, in 
 common with other nations, leaving the right of exclusive dominion 
 in abeyance. It is not perceived how it can, at the same time, be as- 
 serted that the arguments and pretensions of both parties were defini- 
 tively set at rest by the Convention, and that it is o!ily in its text and 
 stipulations that the title on cither side is now to be traced. 
 
 Commerce and settlements might, indeed, be made by either party, 
 during the joint occupav.cy, without regard to their respective preten- 
 sion or title, from whatever consideration derived. But since the 
 sovereignty, since the right of exclusive dominion, has been left in 
 abeyance, that right over any part of the country, to whichever party 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 m 
 
 le time, be as* 
 
 belonging, bas not been extinguisbed, but only suspended, and must 
 revive to its full extent wbenevei* that joint occupancy may cease. 
 
 Whenever, tlieretbrc, a final line of demarcation becomes th<^ sub^ 
 jcct of discussion, the United States have a right, notwithstanding, 
 and in conformity to the Nootka Convention, to appeal, in support of 
 their claims, not only to their own discoveries, but to all the rights 
 derived from the acquisition of Louisiana, and from their treaty of 
 1819 with Spain, in the same maimer as if that Convention had never 
 been made. The question to be examined is, whether those claims 
 are supported by the laws and usages of nations. 
 
 It may bo admitted as an^abstract principle, that, in the origin of 
 society, first occupancy and cultivation were the foundation of the 
 rights of private property and of national sovereignty. But that 
 principle, on which principally, if not exclusively, it would seem that 
 the British Government wishes to rely, could be permitted, in either 
 case, to operate alone and without restriction, so lung only as the ex- 
 tent of vacant territory was such, in proportion to population, that 
 there was ample room for every individual, and for every distinct 
 community, or nation, without danger of collision with others. As 
 in every society, it had soon become necessary to make laws, regu- 
 lating the manner in which its members should be permitted to occu- 
 py and to acquire vacant land within its acknowledged boundaries ; 
 so, also, nations found it indispensable for the preservation of peace, 
 and for the exercise of distinct jurisdiction, to adopt, particularly af- 
 ter the discovery of America, some general rules, which should de- 
 termine the important previous question, << who had a right to occu- 
 py ?»' 
 
 The two rules generally, perhaps universally, recognised and con- 
 secrated by the usage of nations, have flowed from the nature of the 
 subject. 
 
 By virtue of the first, prior discovery gave a right to occupy, pro- 
 vided that occupancy took place within a reasonable time, and was ul- 
 timately followed by permanent settlements, and by the cultivation of 
 the soil. 
 
 In conformity with the second, the right derived from prior discov- 
 ery and settlement, was not confined to the spot so discovered or first 
 settled. The extent 6f territory which would attach to such first dis- 
 covery or settlement might not, in every case, be precisely determin- 
 ed. But that the first discovery, and subsequent settlement within a 
 reasonable time, of the mouth of a river, particularly if none of its 
 branches had been explored prior to such discovery, gave the right of 
 occupancy, and, ultimately, of sovereignty, to the whole country drain- 
 ed by such river and its several branches, has been generally admit- 
 ted. And in a question between the United States and Great Britain, 
 her acts have, with propriety, been appealed to, as showing that the 
 principles on which they rely, accord with her own. 
 
 It is, however, now contended that the British charters, c^iiLtending, 
 in most cases, from the Atlantic Ocean to the South Seas, must be 
 considered as cessions of the sovereign to certain grantees, to the ex- 
 
64 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 1 1 -''I 
 
 mm 
 
 i'iihil 
 
 elusion only of his otiicr subjects, and as of no validity against the 
 subjects of otiiei' States. This construction docs not appear either to 
 have been that intended at the time by the grantors, nor to have 
 governed the subsequent conduct of.Grcat Britain. 
 
 By excepting from the grants, as was generally the case, such lands 
 as were already occupied by the subjects of other civilized nations, 
 it was clearly implied that no other exception was contemplated, and 
 that the grants were intended to include all the unoccupied lands with- 
 in their respective boundaries, to the exclusion of all other persons or 
 nations whatsoever. In point of fact, the^whole country drained by the 
 several rivers emptying into the Atlantic Ocean, the mouths of which 
 were within those charters, has, from Hudson's Bay to Florida, and, 
 it is believed, without exception, been occupied and held by virtue of 
 those charters. Not only has this principle been fully confirmed, 
 but it has been notoriously enforced, much beyond the sources of the 
 rivers on which the settlements were formed. The priority of the 
 French settlements on the rivers flowing westwardly from the Al- 
 leghany Mountains into the Mississippi, was altogether disregarded; 
 and the rights of the Atlantic Colonies to extend beyond those moun- 
 tains, as growing out of the contiguity of territory, and as asserted in 
 the earliest charters, was effectually and successfully enforced. 
 
 It is true, that the two general rules which have been mentioned 
 might often conflict with each other. Thus, in the instance just al- 
 luded to, the discovery of the main branch of the Mississippi includ. 
 ing the mouth of that river, and the occupation of the intervening Pro- 
 vince of Louisiana by •^ lother nation, gave rise at last to a compro- 
 mise of those conflicting claims, and induced Great Britain to restrciin 
 hers within narrower limits than those originally designated. 
 
 But it i^ the peculiar character of the claim of the United States, 
 that it is founded on both principles, which in this case unite both in 
 its support, and convert it into an incontestible right. It is in vain 
 that, in order to avert that conclusion, an attempt is made to consider 
 the several grounds on which that right is urged, as incompatible one 
 with the other, as if the United States were obliged to select only one 
 and to abandon the others. In different hands the several claims 
 would conflict one with the other : Now united in the same Power, 
 they support each other. The possessors of Louisiana might have 
 contended, on the ground of contiguity, for the adjacent territory on the 
 Pacific Ocean, with the discoveries of the coast and of its main rivers. 
 The several discoveries of the Spanish and American navigators might 
 separately have been considered as so many steps in the progress of 
 discovery, and giving only imperfect claims to each party. AH those 
 various claims, from whatever consideration derived, are now brought 
 united against the pretensions of any other nation. 
 
 1st. The actual possession and populous settlements of the valley of 
 the Mississippi, including Louisiana, and now under one sovereignty, 
 constitute a strong claim to the westwardly extension of that Province, 
 over the contiguous vacant territory, and to the occupation and sove- 
 reignty of the country as far as the Pacific Ocean, If some trading 
 
[Doc. No. 199.;] 
 
 65 
 
 3, nor to have 
 
 factories on the sliores of Hudson's Bay, have been considered by 
 Great Britain as giving ai( v^cluHive right of occupancy, as far an the 
 Rocky Mountains ; if the infant Nettlcmcnts on the more Southern At- 
 lantic shores, justified a claim thoncc to the South Seas, uiid wliich was 
 actually enforced to the Mississippi ; that of the millions already with- 
 in reach of those seas, cannot consistently he resisted. For it will not 
 be denied that the extent of contiguous territory, to which an actual 
 settlement gi\ips a prioi- right, must depen<l, in a considerable drfj;rcc, 
 on the magnitude and population of thatsettlrment, and on the iVility 
 with which the vacant adjacent land may, within a short time, 'be oc- 
 cupied, settled, and cultivated, by such iiopulntion, as compared with 
 the probability of its being thus occupied and settled from any other 
 quarter. 
 
 It has been objected that, in tlie grant of I^o'dsiana to Crozpt, by 
 Louis XIV, that Province is dcscribtMl as <»tii. country d»'ain«d by 
 the waters emptying, directly or indirectly, into the Mississippi,*' ex- 
 cluding thereby, by implication, the couniry drained by t <v5 waters 
 emptying into the Pacilic. 
 
 Crozat's grant was not for the wliolc of the Province ol Louisitvi, 
 as it was afterwards extended by France herself, and as it is n<>' ieid 
 by the United Sttites. It was bounded in that grant of 17 ' 2, by Caro- 
 lina to the east, by New Mexico to the west, and on tlic n;' th by the 
 Illinois, which were then part of Canada^ The must nortl jrl> branches 
 of the Mississippi embraced it) the grant, were the Ohio, at that time 
 called Wabash, by the French, and the Missouri, the true course of 
 which was not known at that time, and the sources of whicii were nut 
 supposed to extend north of the 42d parallel of latitude. Noterritory 
 on the west of the Mississippi was intended to be includeni in the grant 
 north of that parallel; and as New Mexico, which bounded it on the 
 west, was understood to extend even farther north, it was impossible 
 that any territory should have been included west of the sources of 
 the rivers emptying into the Mississippi. 
 
 All the territory north of the 42d parallel of latitude, claimed by 
 France, was included at that time, not in Lo i iina, but in the gov- » 
 ernment of New France, as Canada was thesi « .illcd. And by refer- 
 ring to the most authentic French maps, it will be seen that New 
 France was made to extend over the territory drained, or supposed to 
 be drained, by rivers entering into the South Seas. The claim to a 
 westwardly extension to those seas, v. as thus early asserted as part, 
 not of Louisiana, but of New France. The King had reserved to 
 himself, in Crozat's grant, t^e right of enliirging the government of 
 Louisiana. This was done by an ordonnancc dated in the year! 7 1 7, 
 which annexedjthe Illinois to it ; and, from that time, the province ex- 
 tended as far as the most northern limit of the French possessions in 
 North America, and thereby west of Canada or New France. The 
 settlement of that northern limit, still further strengthens the claim 
 of the United States to the territory west of the Korky Mountains. 
 
 The limits between the northerly possessions of Great Britain, in 
 North America, and those of France, in the same quarter, namely, 
 9 
 
i0 
 
 [Dot. No. 199] 
 
 '1f\;!i' 
 
 n 
 
 
 .' \! 
 
 :li '11' 
 
 jl:!iii! 
 
 \")i 
 
 Canada and Louisiana* were determined by commissionei's, appointed 
 in pursuance of the Treaty of UtVeclit. ^Fjrom the coast of Labrador 
 to a certain point north of Lake Superior, those ligiits were fixed ac- 
 cording to certain metes and bounds, and from that point the line of 
 demarcation was agreed to extend indefinitely due west, along the for- 
 ty ^ninth parallel of north latitude. It was in conformity with that ar- 
 rangement that the United States did claim that parallel as the north- 
 ern boundary of Louisiana. It has been, accordingly, thus settled, as 
 far as the Stony Mountains, by the Convention of 1818, between the 
 United States and Great Britain ; and no adequate reason can be giv- 
 en why the same boundary should not be continued as far as the claims 
 of the United States do extend ; that is to say, as far as the Pacific 
 Ocean. This argument is not weakened by the fact that the British 
 settlements west of the Stony Mountains are solely due to the exten- 
 sion of those previously formed on the waters emptying into Hudson's 
 Bay ; and it is from respect to a demarcation, considered as binding 
 on the parties, thttt the United States had consented to ccmfine their 
 claim to the forty-ninth parallel of latitude, namely, to a territory of 
 the same breadth as Louisiana east of the Stony Mountains, although, 
 as foimded on prior discoveries, that claim would have extended much 
 further north. 
 
 2dly. The United States have an undoubted right to claim by virtue 
 both of the Spanish discoveries and of their own. Setting aside all 
 those which are not supported by authentic evidence, some of the most 
 important were made by Spanish navigators prior to Cook's voyage. 
 In 1774, Perez, in the Spanish corvette Santiago, discovered Nootka 
 Sound in latitude 49° 30', and sailed to the fifty-filth degree, discover- 
 ing Lougara Island and Perez (now called Dixi)n's) Entrance, north 
 of Qiteen Charlotte Island. In 1775, Quadra, in the Spanish schoon- 
 er Felicidad. of whic!) Alaurelle was pilot, discovered various ports 
 between the fifty-fit; h and fifty eighth degree, and explored the coast 
 from 42° to 54°, landing at several places, imposing names to some, 
 and not being, at any time, hardly more than ten leagues from the 
 shore. 
 
 In other Spanish voyages of a subsequent date, those of Arteaga 
 and Quadra in 1779, and of Martinez and Haro in 1786, various other 
 parts of the Northwest Coast were explored, as far north as the six- 
 tieth degree of north latitude. 
 
 The Straits of Fuca were discovered, or again found in 1787, by 
 captain Barclay, of the Imperial £agle, a vessel fitted out at Ostcnd. 
 The ciitrame was, in 1788, again visited by the English Captains 
 Meares and Duncan. In the same year, Captain Gray, of the Ameri- 
 can r>Io<M) Washington, (who arrived at Nootka in September, coming 
 from the south, where he had landed,) penetrated fifty miles up the 
 straits. They were explored in 1791, by the Spanish Captains Quim- 
 pa and Eliza, bovond the 50th degree of latitude. Their complete 
 survey, and t!ie discovery of the northern outlet, in 1792, are due 
 principaii^ to Captain Vancouver, viho sailed through them in compa* 
 ny with the Sjianish vessels Sutil and Mexicana. 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 «r; 
 
 The (lisrovcry, which belongs exclusively to the United States, and 
 in theii' own riglit, is that of the river Columbia. 
 
 Tiic continuity of the coast from the 42d to the 48th degree oriati- 
 tude, hud been ascertained by the voyage of Quadra, in 1775, and 
 confirmed by that of Captain Cook in 1778. The object of discovery 
 thenceforth, was that of a large river, which should open a communi- 
 cation with the interior of the country. This had escaped Quadra, 
 who had sailed in sight of the entrance afterwards discovered. Mcares 
 failed likewise in his attempt in the year 1788 to make the discovery. 
 Captain Vancouver \yas not more fortunate. After having also sailed 
 along the coast from south to north, to the 48th degree, he recorded 
 in his journal of the 29th of April, 1792* which he had too much pro- 
 bity afterwards to alter, his opinion, tliat there was no" large river 
 south of 48% but only small creeks. On the ensuing day, he met at 
 sea with Captain Gray, then commanding the American ship «' C')lum- 
 bia," who informed him of the existence of tite river, at the nifiiith of 
 which, he (Gray) had been for several days without being able to 
 enter it. 
 
 Captain Vancouver proceeded to B'uca's Straits, and Captain Gray 
 returned to the south, where he completed his discovery, having, on 
 the nth May, entered the river which bears the name of his ship, and 
 ascended it upwards of twenty miles. He then, having also discover- 
 ed Gray's harbor, went to Nootka Sound, where he again met with 
 captain Vancouver, to whom he communicated his discoveries, and 
 gave him a rough chart of tl)e river. With this information one 
 of captain Vancouver's officers was sent to take a survey of Gray's 
 harbor, and anotlier that of the Columbia river, whic!i he ascended 
 about eight miles higher up than Gray. 
 
 Yet in order to found a claim derived from a share in the discovery, 
 that of Captain Gray, is called only a step in the progress of disco- 
 very ; and it is attempted to divide its merit between him, Meares, 
 and Captain Vancouver's officer. 
 
 It nuist again be repeated, that the sole object of discovery was 
 " the river," and, coming from sea, the mouth of the river. Meares 
 only followed Quadra's track. Had he suggested or suspected the 
 existence of a river, when he was near its entrance, it would have been 
 a step in the progress of discovery. So far from it, that, in his map, 
 he has laid the presumed mouth of the great river of the west, of the 
 traditional Oregon, of the real Columbia, in the Straits of Fuca. The 
 very names which he imposed, Cape Disajjpointment and Deception 
 Bay, attest his failure. 
 
 Captain Vancouver having completed his survey o^that part of the 
 coast, with a conviction that no large river emptied there into the 
 ocean, would not have explored it again had he not received the in- 
 formation from Ca])tain Gray, of his discoveries ; a»id, in fact, in his 
 second visit to that quarter, he surveyed, or caused to be surveyed, 
 only the harbor and the river which had been indicated by him. The 
 Lieutenant sent to the Columbia, and who never would have gone 
 there had it not been for ("aptain Gray's information, performed, no 
 
I, ' 
 
 ^.■•^'%< 
 
 y "'■* 
 
 
 11 
 
 ji 
 
 i!' 
 
 '^•Li; 
 
 ■III 
 y.'!i 
 
 ■4, 
 
 -'■< l! 
 
 
 
 .1 'ir'lif 
 
 68 
 
 [Dod. No. 199.1 
 
 doubt, ^vith fidelityv the iiieclianical duty of taking the aonndingfl one 
 hundred miles up its course. In that consists liis sole merit ; in the 
 discovery ho had not tiie slightest share. The important services ren- 
 dered to navigation and to science, by that officer, and by Captain 
 Vancouver, are fully acknowledged ; and their well-earned reputation 
 cannot be increased by ascribing to them what exclusively belongs to 
 another. 
 
 Louisiana having been acquired by the United States in 1803, an 
 expedition was immediately ordered by Government to examine its 
 western districts. In the course of this, Captains Lewis and Clarke 
 ascended the Missouri to its source, crossed the Rocky Mountains, 
 and explored the course of the Columbia, from its most eastern sources 
 to its mouth, where they arrived on the 6th of November, 1805. 
 There they erected the works called Fort Clatsop, and wintered in 
 1 805-1 806. And thus was the discovery of the river commenced and 
 completed by the United States, before, as it is firmly believed, any 
 settlement liad been made on it, or any of its branches been explored 
 by any other nation. 
 
 This is corroborated by the statement of the British Flenipotentia> 
 ries. After having given, as the date of Lewis and Clarke's explora- 
 tion, not the year 1805, but the years 1805-1806, thoy assert that, if 
 not before, at least in the same and subsequent years, Mr. Thomson 
 had alrea«ly established a post on tlie head waters of the northern or 
 main branch of the Columbia. Had that post been established in 
 1805, before Lewis and Clarke's exploration, another and more dis- 
 tinct mode of expression would have been adopted. But it cannot be 
 seriously contended that, if Mr. Thonison had, in that year, reached 
 one of the sources of the Columbia, north of the 50th degree of lati- 
 tude; this, compared with the complete American exploration, would 
 give to Great Britain "a title to parity, at least, if not priority of 
 discovery, as o])pased to the United States." 
 
 In the year 1810, Mr. Astor, a citizen of the United States, fitted 
 out two expeditions for the mouth of the Columbia ; one by sea, and 
 the other by land, from the Missouri. In March, 1811, the establish- 
 ment of Astoria was accordingly commenced near the mouth of the 
 river, before any British settlement had been made south of the 49th 
 parallel of latitude. From that principal post, several other settle- 
 ments were formed ; one of them, contrary to the opinion entertained 
 by the British I'lenipotentiaries. at the mouth of the Wanahata, seve- 
 ral hundred miles up, and on the right bank of the Columbia. 
 
 These establishments fell into the hands of the British during the 
 war; and that of Astoria has since been formally restored in confor- 
 mity with the Treaty of Ghent. On the circumstances of that restitu- 
 tion, it is sufhcient to observe, that, with the various despatches from 
 and to the olKrers of the British Government, the United States have 
 no concern; tiitit it is not stated how the verbal communications of 
 tlie Bi'itish Minister at Washington were received, nor whether the 
 American Government consented to accept the restitution, with the 
 reservation, as expressed in the despatches to that Minister from his 
 
[Doc. No 199.] * : Ji 
 
 Government ; and that the only written document affecting the re- 
 storation, known to be in possession of that of the United^Statcs, is the 
 act of restoration itself, which contains no exception, reservation, or 
 protest, whatever. 
 
 It has thus been established, that the Columbia river was first dis- 
 covered by the United States ; that that first discovery was attended 
 by a complete exploration of the river, from its most easterly source 
 to the north, before any such exploration had been madt by any other 
 nation ; by a simultaneous actual occupation and possession, and by 
 subsequent establishments and settlements made within a reasonable 
 time, and which have been interrupted only by the casualties of war. 
 
 Tliis, it is contended, gives, according to the acknowledged law 
 and usages of nations, a right to the whole country drained by that 
 river and by its tributary streams, which could have been ojiposed on- 
 ly by the conflicting claim derived from the possession of Louisiana. 
 Both united and strengthened by the other Spanish and American dis- 
 coveries along the coast, (and, without reference to the cession of the 
 pretensions of Spain, derived from other considerations,) establish, it 
 is firmly believed, a stronger title to the country above described, and . 
 along the coast as far north, at least, as the 49tlr parallel of latitude, 
 tlian has ever, at any former time, been asserted by any nation to va- 
 cant territory. 
 
 Before the subject is dismissed, it may be proper to observe, that 
 the United States had no motive, in the year 1790, to protest against 
 tlic Nootka Convention, since their exclusive right to the territory on 
 the Pacific originated in Gray's discovery, which took ;;lace only in 
 1793. The acquisition of Louisiana, and their last treaty with Spain, 
 are still posterior. 
 
 On the formality called « taking possession," though no actual pos- 
 session of the country is taken, and on the validity of sales of land 
 and surrender of sovereignty by Indians, who are for the first time 
 brought into contact with civilized men ; who have no notion of what 
 they mean by either soverignty or property in land ; who do not even 
 know what cultivation is ; with whom it is difficult to communicate, 
 even upon visible objects; the American Plenipotentiary thinks that 
 he may abstain from making any remarks. 
 
 Whilst supporting their claim by arguments, which they think con- 
 clusive, the Uniteil States have not been inattentive t j the counter 
 claims of Great Britain. 
 
 They, indeed, deny that the trading posts of the Northwest Com- 
 pany give any title to the territory claimed by America, not only 
 because no such post was established within the limits claimed, when 
 Ihc first American settlement was made, but because the title of the 
 United States is considei'ed as having been complete, before any of 
 those traders had appeared on the waters of the Columbia. It is also 
 believed, that mere factories, established solely for the purpose of 
 trafficking with the natives, and without any view to cultivation and 
 permanent settlemojit, cannot, of themselves, and unsupported by 
 any other consideration, give atty bortor title to domininii and abso- 
 
' f I 
 
 70 
 
 ' 1) 
 
 hti 
 
 1 ■ I' 
 
 |l|-i. 
 
 i'i-li:: 
 
 ^ iS ^s II 
 
 !•■' 
 
 [l)oc. No. 199.] 
 
 lute sovereignty, than similar establishments made in a ci^Iized 
 country. 
 
 But the United States have paid due regard to tlie diseoveries by 
 which the British navigators have so eminently distinguished them- 
 selves, to those, perhaps nut less remarkable, made by land from the 
 uppur lakes ot' the Pacific, and to the contiguity of the possessions of > 
 Great Britain, on the waters of Hudson's Bay, to the territory bor- 
 dering on that Ocean. Above all, thuy have been earnestly desirous 
 to preserve and cherish, not only the peaceful, but the friendly rela- 
 tions whicli happily subsist between the two countries. And, with 
 that object in view, their offer of a permanant line of demarcation has 
 been made, under a i)erfect conviction that it was attended with the 
 sacrifice of a portion of what they might justJyjclaim. 
 
 Viewed as a matter of mutual convenience, and with equal desire, 
 on both sides, to avert, by a definitive line of delimitation, any possi- 
 ble cause of collision in that quarter, every consideration connected 
 with the subject may be allowed its due weight. 
 
 If the present state of occupancy is urged, on the part of Great Bri- 
 tain, the probability of the manner in which the territory west of the 
 Rocky Mountains must be settled, belongs also essentially to the sub- 
 ject. Under whatever nominal s<ivercigiity that country may be 
 placed, and whatever its ultimate destinies may be, it is nearly re- 
 duced to a cej'tainty, that it will be almost exclusively peoplet4 by the 
 surplus population of the United States. The distance from Great 
 Britain, and the expense incident to emigration, forbid the expecta- 
 tion of any being practicable, from that quarter, but on a compara- 
 tively small scale. Allowing the rate of increase to be the same in 
 the United States, and in the North American British possessions, the 
 difference in the actual population of both is such, that the progressive 
 rate which would, witliin forty years, add three millions to these, 
 would, within the same time, give a positive increase of more than 
 twenty millions to the United States. And if circumstances, aris- 
 ing from localities and habits have given superior facilities to 
 British subjects, of extending their camtnvrcc with the natives, and 
 to that expansion which iias the appearance, and the appearance only, of 
 occupancy ; the slower but .sure j)rogre.ss and extension of an agri- 
 cultural population, will be regulated by distance, by natural obstacles, 
 and by its own amount. The primitive right of acquiring property 
 and sovereignty by occupancy alone, admitting it to be unlimited in 
 theory, cannot extend beyond the capacity of occupying and cultivat- 
 ing the soil. 
 
 It may also be observed, that, in reality, tlicre were but three na- 
 tions whicli had both the right and the power to colonize the territory 
 in question : Great Britain, the United States, and Spain, or now the 
 new American States. These are now excluded, in consequence of 
 the treaty of 1819. The United States, who have purchased their 
 right for a valuable consideration, stand now in their place, and, on 
 that ground, in the view entertained of the subject by the British 
 Government, are. on a final partition of the ••ountry, fairly entitled to 
 two sliares. 
 
 ij:: :'I8^ 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 II a civilized 
 
 Under all the circumstances of the case, as stated on both sides, the 
 United States offer a line, which leaves to Great Britain by far the 
 best poHion of the fur trade, the only object, at this time, of the pur- 
 suits of her subjects in that quarter, and a much greater than her pro- 
 portionate share of the country, with a view to its permanent settle- 
 ment, if the relative geographical situation and means of colonizing of 
 both parties are taken into consideration. B'rom the 42d degree of 
 north latitude to the Observatory Inlet, in about 55° 30', there is a 
 front ON the Pacific of almost fourteen degrees of latitude, which the 
 49th parallel divides into two nearly equal parts. The mouth of the 
 Columbia river, if accepted as a boundary, would leave less than one- 
 third to the ^Tnited States. 
 
 The offer c the fi*ee navigation of that river, when the whole ter- 
 ritory, draineb jy all its tributary streams, including the northernmost 
 branches, might have been justly claimed, would have also given to 
 Great Biitain, in time of peace, all the commercial advantages which 
 it can afford to the Americans. 
 
 In the case of a war, (which God forbid,) whatever might be the 
 result on shore, the line proposed by Great Britain, even with the 
 addition of the detached and defenceless territory she offered, would 
 leave the sea border at her mercy, and the United States without a 
 single port : whilst the boundary proposed by them might, during 
 that period, deprive Great Britain only of the use of the port at the 
 mouth of the Columbia, and would leave in the secure possession of 
 numerous seaports, perhaps less convenient, but still affording ample 
 mc^ns of commun -cation with the interior. That line, indeed, with 
 such slight recipro^ al modifications as the topography of the country 
 may indicate, would establish the most natural and mutually defen- 
 sible boundary that can be found, and for that reason the least liable to 
 collision, and the best calculated to perpetuate peace and harmony be> 
 tween the two Powers. 
 
 but three na- 
 the territory 
 n, or now the 
 onsequence of 
 rchased their 
 dace, and, on 
 y the British 
 Iv entitled to 
 
 PROTOCOL of the eighth Conference between the American and Bri- 
 tish Plenipotentiaries, held at the Board of Trade, on the £4<A of 
 May, 1827. 
 
 Present : — Mr. Galiatiit, 
 Mr. HcsKissoy, 
 Mr. Addington. 
 
 The American Plenipotentiary stated, that, having submitted to his 
 Government the protocols of the precedingjConferences, on the subject 
 of the country west of the Stony Mountains, he was instructed to ex- 
 press the regret of the President of the United States, that the pio- 
 posal of the boundary line in that quarter, which had been offered on 
 their part, should have been declined, and, at the same time, to repeat. 
 
72 
 
 [Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 f 
 
 1! 
 
 '■.■ \i>\ 
 
 .1,1 i 
 
 ■if: ! 'i 
 
 '■I 
 
 i' ',:i 
 
 
 in the name of his Government, the declaration, wiiicli he had already 
 made in substance, that the American Government does not hold itself 
 bound hereafter, in consequence of any proposal which it has hereto- 
 fore made, to agree to the line which has been so proposed and reject* 
 ed, but will consider itself at liberty to contend for the full extent of 
 the claims of the United States. 
 
 The American Plenipotentiary further stated, that the projet of 
 Convention for the renewal, for a fresh term of years, of the provision 
 relative to the said country, contained in the Convention of 1818, 
 'which had been offered at the sixth conference by the British Pleni- 
 potentiaries, had been taken into serious consideration by his Gk»vern> 
 ment; that, though animated by the same motives which had suggest* 
 ed the offer, they could not agree to the provisions of the second arti- 
 cle of the projet ; and that, after a deliberate examination of the sub- 
 ject, unable to propose any satisfactory modification, and i)ersuaded 
 that both Governments might confidently rely on the faithful execu- 
 tion of the former agreement, they still believed that, upon the whole, 
 a simple renewal of the third article of the Convention of 1818, for a 
 limited term of years, as stated by the American Plenipotentiary^ at 
 the fourth conference, was. for the present, the most eligible measure 
 that could be adopted. This renewed agreement would, as intimated 
 by the British Plenipotentiaries at the close of the fourth conference, 
 be subject to the understanding, that the two Governments should 
 unite their endeavors, within the period assigned for its duration, to 
 make a definitive settlement of the boundary to be drawn between 
 them in the territories in question. 
 
 The British Plenipotentiaries took the communication of the Ame- 
 rican Plenipotentiary for reference to their Government, but declared 
 that, since the American Plenipotentiary had reasserted, in the name 
 of his Government, claims of an undefined extent to the Northwest 
 Coast of America, they, equally, on the part uf Great Britain, hereby 
 renewed the protest relative to the / ^aims of Great Britain over that 
 same territory, which they had inserted in the protocol of their third 
 conference. 
 
 The question of boundary, under the fifth article of the treaty of 
 Ghent, was then entered upon, and, after some general conversation, 
 postponed for further consideration to a future conference. 
 
 Adjourned. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN, 
 W. HUSKISSON, 
 H. U. ADDINGTON. 
 
 A true copy. 
 
 W. B. Lawubnck, . 
 
 Secretary of Legation. 
 
 , ! 
 
[Hoc. No. 199.] 
 
 Extract from the Protoool of the ninth Conference, betxveen the Jlmerican 
 and British PlenipotentiarieSf held at the Board of TradCf on the 1 ^h 
 June, 1827. . ' 
 
 Present: — Mr. Galxatiw, ;' 
 
 . ' .,' Mr. IIusKissoN, - 
 
 Mr. Addington. , * 
 
 The protocol of the preceding conference was read over and signed. 
 
 The British Plenipotentiaries, in expressing their regret at the 
 communication made to them by the American Plenipotentiary at the 
 preceding conference, that his Government had declined acceding to 
 the additional article of the projet of convention presented by them at 
 the sixth conference, for the renewal, for a fresh term of years, of the 
 provision respecting the territory on the Northwest Coast of America 
 west of the Rocky Mountains, which was contained in the Convention 
 of the 20th October, 1818, declared themselves disposed to withdraw 
 that project, and to acquiesce in the proposition submitted by the 
 American Plenipotentiary, for the simple renewal of the third article 
 of the Convention of 1818. 
 
 In so doing, however, the British Plenipotentiaries intimated that 
 ihey would find it expedient to insert in the protocol a declaration ex- 
 planatory of what they considered to be the true intent of that article, 
 namely, that both parties were thereby equally restricted, during its 
 continuance in force, from exercising or assuming the right to exer- 
 cise, any exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction over the territory in 
 question. 
 
 The British Plenipotentiaries added, that, at an early opportunity, 
 they would be prepared to submit a project of convention and declara- 
 tion, drawn up in the above sense. 
 
 The American Plenipotentiary expressed himself ready to pay 
 every attention to any proposition which might come from the British 
 Plenipotentiaries, but doubted whether he would be able to sign any 
 convention, if accompanied by a declaration of the nature abovcmen-^ 
 tinned. 
 
 The American Plenipotentiary said that he would take also that 
 subject for consideration. 
 
 Draft of Protocol of 9th Conference, as first proposed by the Biitish 
 
 Plenipotentiaries. 
 
 Protocol of the 9th conference held at the Board of Trade, l!}th 
 June, 1827. 
 
 The protocol of the preceding conference was read over and signed. 
 
 The Brilisli Plenipotentiaries informed the American Plenipoten- 
 tiary that they had taken into consideration the proposition made by 
 iiim at the preceding conference, for tlic simple renewal, during a fur- 
 tlifr term of ten years, of the 3d article of tlie Convco+^on of 1818, 
 10 
 
14 
 
 [ttoc. No. 199.] 
 
 ^m! 
 
 ; '* 
 
 ■•i ••; 
 
 injcliidiiig the additional article submitted b; the British Plenipoten- 
 tiaries, at the sixth conference, to the admission of which the Ameri- 
 can Plenipotentiary had declared that his Government objected. 
 
 The British Plenipotentiaries stated that they were willing to desist 
 from pressing for the insertion of that article in the Convention whi h 
 it was now proposed to renew and that they would consent to a sim- 
 ple renewal of the third article of the Convention of 1818. In so do- 
 ing, however, they would find it expedient to enter on the protocol a 
 declaration explanatory of what they considered to be the true intent 
 of that article, namely, that both parties were thereby restricted, dur- 
 ing its continuance in force, from exercising, or assuming to themselves 
 the riglit to exercise, any exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction over the 
 territory mentioned in that article. 
 
 Tlie I3ritish Plenipotentiaries intimated, that, at an early opportuni- 
 ty, they would put formally into the hands of the American Plenipo- 
 tentiary a |.i'ojcct of Convention drawn up in the above sense^ as well 
 as of H declaration of the nature above described. 
 
 
 J '■''.: 
 
 
 Extracts from the Protocol of the tenth Conference between the Ameri- 
 can ana Bnlish Plenipotentiaries, held at the Board of IVade, on 
 the 22d of June, 1827. 
 
 Present — Mr. Gallatin", 
 Mr. HusKissoN, 
 Mr. Addington*. 
 
 ^ 
 
 The protocol of the preceding conference was read over and signed. 
 
 In reference to the intimation at the (^receding conference, by the 
 British Plenipotentiaries, of the declaration which they expressed 
 their intention to insert in the protocol, on renewing the third article 
 of the Convention of 1818, relative to the territory west of the Rocky 
 iMountains, the American Plenipotentiary observed, that the said ar- 
 ticle having only provided that the territory in question should be free 
 and open to the vessels, citizens, and subjects, of the two Powers, he 
 could not admit that, according to its true meaning and intent, any 
 other act of either party was thereby forbidden, but such as, in con- 
 li'avention of the article, would impede or impair the rights secured 
 by it. 
 
 To acquiesce in the declaration which the British Plenipotentiaries 
 had expressed their intention to insert in the protocol, appeared to 
 him tantamount to the insertion in the Convention of the same provi- 
 sion, to whicli, as part of the second article of tlic projet, offered at the 
 sixth conference, the United States had already declared that they 
 could not accede. 
 
 He must, therefore, declare his inability to agree to a renewal of 
 the Convention of 1818, if .'iccompanied by a declaration, such as 
 had been intimated, or purporting to explain the meaning or inteqt of 
 the article. 
 
[Doc. No. 199.] 
 
 PROTOCOL of the 12//i Conference between the American and British 
 FlenipotentiarieSf held at the Board of Trade, on the iisl July, 1827> 
 
 Present — Mr. Gallatin, 
 .. * •• ,Mr. GttANT, ' ■• ^■\". 
 
 Mr. Addinotok. 
 
 The protocols of the two preceding conferences were read over and 
 signed. 
 
 In consequence of tlve retirement from the commission of one of tlte 
 former British Pleni|)otentiarics, and tlie appointment of a successor 
 in his place, the Plenipotentiaries again examined and exchanged 
 their full powers. 
 
 In reference to the observations and declaration made at tlic tenth 
 conference, by the American Plenipotentiary, with respect to the re- 
 newal of the third article of the Convention of 1 8 1 8, if accompiinied by 
 the declaration proposed at the 9th conference by the British Plenipo- 
 tentiaries, the latter stated that tliey conceived that the main benefit 
 resulting from that article was, that it kept in abeyance, during the 
 term of its existence^ all conflicting riglits to the territory to which it 
 related. That benefit, however, considering the diflcrence of ojnriion 
 wliicli prevailed on the true intent of that article, the British Pleni- 
 potentiaries apprehended could no longer be expected to result from 
 its renewal. 
 
 Since, therefore, the American Plenipotentiary had declared his in- 
 ability to agree to such a declaration as tbat proposed by the British 
 Plenipotentiaries, the latter were comi)elled to decline accepting the 
 pro[)osal of the American Plenipotentiary for renewing, for a further 
 i^xcd term of years, the third article of the Convention of 1818. 
 
 In case, however, the American Plenipotentiary should so far modi- 
 fy that proposal as to offer the renewal of that article, merely as a 
 temporary act, intended to prevent collision between the parties, while 
 measures were maturing for effecting a more permanent settlement of 
 their respective claims, the British Plenipotentiaries would, in that 
 case, be ready to take such a proposition into consideration. 
 
 'i'hey however expressly stated, that, in agreeing to such a proposal, 
 Great Britain in no wise receded from any claim previously urged on 
 her part to the territory west of the Rocky Mountains, or admitted 
 any claim advanced by the United States with resjicct to the same 
 tci'ritory. 
 
 PROTOCOL of the thirteenth Conference between the American and 
 British Plenipotentiaries, held at the Board of Trade, the Z&th July, 
 1827. 
 
 Present — Mr. Gallatix, ""■ 
 
 " ** Mr. Grant, ^fc* 
 
 Mr. Addingtow. "•;' ' 
 
 < '. 
 
 The protocol of the last conference was read over and signed. 
 The American Plenipotentiary stated, that he had conceived the 
 principal advantage i-esulting from the third article of the Convention 
 
76 
 
 TDoc. No. 199.] 
 
 Mi: 
 
 of 1818, to consiNt ill that it prevented collisions and disputes between 
 the citizens and subjects of the two parties ; but he coincided entirely 
 in the opinion of the British Plenipotentiaries, that, in whatever sliape 
 renewed, it must be with a mutual understanding, that neither party 
 thereby in any wise receded from any claim previously urged jon its 
 part, or admitted any claim advanced by the other party to tiie terri*' 
 tory west of the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 With that understanding, and believing, also, that a temporary re- 
 newal was necessary, and would be sufficient to afford time to mature 
 measures having for their object a more definite settlement of the 
 claims of each party to the said territory, the American Plenipoten- 
 tiary would modify his former proposal, and submit a renewal of the 
 article for an indefinite time, but liable to be rescinded at the will of 
 either party. 
 
 He accordingly submitted the project of Convention, hereto annex- 
 edy wliich was talcen by the British Plenipotentiaries for consideration. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN, 
 
 CUA. GRANT, 
 
 H. U. ADDINGTON. 
 
 True copy. 
 
 W. B. Lawrence, 
 
 Secretary of Legation. 
 
 it'%p 
 
 ■■/■[ 
 
 ^■'•^H 
 
 :«1« 
 
 ^ m 
 
 VROJECT of Convention relative to the JVorthwest Boundary, 
 
 The United States of America and his Majesty the King of the 
 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, being equally desirous 
 to prevent, as far as possible, all hazard of misunderstanding between 
 the two nations, with respect to the territory on the Northwest Coast 
 of America, west of the Stony or Rocky Mountains, after the expira- 
 tion of the third article of the Convention concluded between them on 
 the twentieth of October, 1818, and also with a view to give further 
 time for maturing measures which shall have for their object a more 
 definite settlement of the claims of each party to the said territory, 
 have respectively named their Plenipotentiaries to treat and agree 
 concerning a temporary renewal of the said article; tliat is to say : 
 
 The President of the United States of America, Ai^bert Galla- 
 tin, their Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to his 
 Britannic Majesty : 
 
 And his Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Bri- 
 tain and Ireland, the right honorable Charles Grant, a member of 
 his said Majesty's most honorable Privy Council, a member of Parlia- 
 ment, and Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council for Af- 
 fairs of Trade and Foreign Plantations, and Henry Unwin Ad- 
 DiNGTON. Esq., who, after having communicated to each other their 
 respective full powers, found to be in due and proper forni, have agreed 
 upon and concluded tlie following articles : 
 
[Do«. No. 199/1 
 
 7r 
 
 Article I. ^'^ 
 
 All ilic provisions of tlio tliird article of the Convention concluded 
 between the United States of America, and his Majesty the King of 
 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, on the twentieth 
 of Uctobor, 1818, shall be, &nd they are hereby, further indefinitely 
 extended and continued in force, in the same manner as if all the pro* 
 visions of the said article were herein specifically recited. 
 
 AllTICLE II. 
 
 It shall be competent, however, to either of the contracting parties, 
 in case either should think fit, at any time after the twentieth of Octo- 
 ber, 1828, on giving due notice of twelve months to the other con- 
 tracting party, to annul and abrogate this Convention : and it shall, 
 in such case, be accordingly entirely annulled and abrogated after the 
 expiration uf the said terra of notice. 
 
 ~- ■ ' . ■■', 
 
 Article III. 
 
 Nothing contained in this Convention, or in the third article of the 
 Convention of the twentieth of October, 1818, hereby continued in 
 I'orce, shah be construed to impair, or in any manner affect the cbims 
 which either of the contracting parties may have to any part of. the 
 rountry westward of the Stony or Rocky Mountains. 
 
 Article IV. ' 
 
 The present convention shall be ratified, and the ratification, shall 
 Ite exchanged in nine months, or sooner if possible. 
 
 In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed' 
 
 the same, and have aflixcd thereto the seals of their arms. 
 Done at London, the ■ ' ■ ' day of — — . in the year of 
 our Lord 1827. 
 
 ^f 
 
 **5 
 
 l^i 
 
 yC 
 
 VECLARATIOJ>l* proposed to be annexed to the renewal of the Conven- 
 tion respecting A'*orthxvestern Boundary, 
 
 In renewing the third article of the Convention of 1818, relative to 
 the territory on the Northwest Coast of America, westward of the 
 Rocky Mountains, his Britannic Majesty hereby declares that, as his 
 Majesty considers himself precluded by the provisions of that article, 
 now renewed, from exercising, or assuming to himself the right to 
 exercise, any exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction over the territory 
 mentioned in t^at article, so, his Majesty, in like manner, holds that 
 the United States arc equally hound, on their part also, to abstain 
 from exercising, or assuming to themselves tlie right to exercise, any 
 exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction over the said territory, during 
 the rontinnancp in force of the present Convention.