^ ■.%. w %. .o^^'A^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^ <° ,% / "^ ->" w. "^' /* '^ k<', f/j :/. 1.0 I.I 1.25 InisB •^IIIIM IIIIIM 1.8 1^ m \z a U llll 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 iV \ % V ^^ \\ '# >. ^^%, ^ O^ <^^ <> ^^L c* w. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historlques :V Technical and Bibliographic Notos/Notos tuchniquos et bibliotjraphiques 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. L'Institut a microfilnW! le meilieur exemplaire qu'il lui eto possible de se procurer. Les details de cet axeniplaire qui sont peut-etre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image repruduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methode normale de filmage sont indiques ci-dessous. D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restauree et/ou pelliculee □/Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque D D D D D D Coloured maps/ Cartes geographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reiid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin' Lareliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ It se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutees lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas et6 filmees. D D D X n D D D D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagees Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculees Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages decolor6es, tachetees ou piquees Pages detached/ Pages detachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement* obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 10X cum sni a »i III no a 14X U iOU A U« 18X 1"'- " 22X 26X SOX 1 \^ ^ i 12X 16X 20X / 24X 28X 32X re details es du modifier er une filmage jes The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of Congress Photoduplication Service The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. 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- TIIMUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. 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: L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grace d la gdn^rositd de: Library of Congress Photoduplication Service Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commencant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derni^re page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commencant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derni^re page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaUia sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le sytibole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN '. Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent etre film^s ck des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 ck partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. I errata d to le pelure, con ck n 32X I 1 2 3 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 mi !■ •^t SECOND POSTSCRIPT TO A PAMPHLET EN- TITLED "THE OREGON QUESTION," BY THOMAS FALCONER, ESQ., IN REPLY TO THE "REJOINDER" OF MR GREENHOW, AND TO SOME OBSERVATIONS IN THE 'EDINBURGH REVIEW.' Mr GnEENiiow is evidently a very intemperate person ; but he is also dull, in not having an accurate perception of the arguments which ho professes to answer. , , ^ . „ •** „ I cited from the " History of the Federal Government, written by Alden Bradford, LL.D., the following passage respecting the purchase of Louisiana : — " Tlie purcliase included all lands ' on the. east side of the Misxisstppi River, not then bdonqinn to the United States, as far as the ,, teat chain of mountains which divide the waters runnina into the Paofic ami those faUmj, into the Atlantic Ocean; and from the said chain of mountains to the Pacific Ocean, between the territory claimed by Great Britain on the one side, and by ttpaw on the other' " The words in Italics are placed between inverted commas, as a citation, by Dr Bradford, himself. Respecting tins passage, Mr Grcenhow repeats, that I have produced it as a stipulation f» the Treaty of 1803, whereby France ceiled Louisiana to the UiuteU This is not a correct statement of the fact. I cited the passage from Dr Bradford's work, referring to that work for it, and no( reternng to the Treaty. Any person turning to the Treaty would have at once observed that the reference was made to the work of Ur Bradford only, and could not liave been misled. In my first Kssay, I spoke of it inaccurately, in some passages, as 1 have betoro explained ; but in subsequent editions of my argument 1 corrected the expressions, and also referred to the passage as containing the terms of " an agreement," or, in the words of Dr Bradford, ot tlio " purchase " of Louisiana, confirmed by the Treaty of 1803. Now, in order to make " a purchase," there must be 'an agreement ;" but Mr Greenhow asserts, "that it is not the fact that Dr Bradford says anything calculated to induce the supposi- tion that the passage cited by him related to any agreement. 1 cannot agree with Mr Greenhow, nor do I think any other person can agree with him. Assuming that Dr Bradford spoke of a " pur- clmse'" as necessarily meaning an agreement, which lie must 1^ r^ 'V=y the Spaniards, who, in 1774 and 1775, landed there in many places, and ' took possession ' for their Sovereign before they had lieen seen by the people of any other civilized nation ; and the first settlemrnt made in any part of the regions now known as Oregon, was that of the Spaniards at Nootka in May, 1789. The next, in point of time, were those of the Americans on the Columbia, in 1809, and the suhse(|uent years to 1814. The earliest British settlements west of the Rocky Mountains were made in 1806, in the region north of Oregon. The ' tiiking possession' by the Spaniards, and afterwards by the Uritish, was, as I have termed it in my fiistory, 'an empty pageiint, securing no real rights to those by whom, or in whose names, it was performed ; ' but the priority in this point belongs to the Spaniards. The settlements at Nootka and Astoria were meant to be permanent : they did not prove so, any more than those made in old time at Babylon, Palmyra, or Thebes." The history of the Spanish Babylon at Nootka, and of the Ame- rican Palmyra at Astoria, will not support this statement of Jlr Greenhow, Let us first take the Spanish Babylonian settlement. The following are the contradictory accounts given of it by the same author : — " Forgetting or concealing the facts, that Spanish officers had Ijnded on all those coasts, and, on each occdsiun, had most formally taken possession in the name of their monarch, anb had made a set- tlement bij direct and special orders . of their Government, before any at- tempt for the same purpose had been made there by the people of any other nation." — ' Mr Green- how's Strictures,' pp. 3 and 4. " It should be observed, with re- gard to the right of the Spanish Government thus to take possession of Nootka, that, before the 6th of May, 1789, when Martinez entered the Sound with that object, no set- lltment, factory, or other establishment whatsoever, had been founded or at- tempted, nor had any jurisdiction been exercised by the authorities or subj>-"t"77/7;;.S S atos • jects. Thoy could not extend the dominions of the U mted S ateb , ind no law had been passed to give them any authority. 1 e Go- vernment of the United States did not occupy the country, nor was any settlement made under its autliority. , . n „„« «.nro ke parties by whom the British settlements in O^f ". Y^^^',«^ made, acted un.ler an authority ^iven to them by the Ik ish Government; and the Crown having previously " t"ken r"She^ Bion" of it, the British title is complete. "1," says .Mr Green- how "in my book, have called tfie act of taking possession, a s'olemn p7geant, 'securing no real rights." But neither the book, nor tile author, are of any authority on matters g"" '"g ^/'^ conduct of civilized nations. 1'he formal takmg P~"«° .''/ * countrv is a very important notice to the different Governments ot the"vorld It is the open promulgation of a public claim inviting £cusS^ if liable to L cinteste«™ """^""V/^ *V?„r this of their own country. What is proposed to ^e substituted for this solemnity? The Americans propose to establish claims to a ntw country, based on the unauthorised acts of the agents of a merchant of New York, and on the proceedings of trappers an^ squatters whose crimes in the territory claimed no court in the Umted States could punish ! They call that country theirs in which no othcer ot the United States could execute a single law of his own Govern- "* Thi'rdly, Mr Greenhow asserts that « the British Government did not instruct Vancouver to take possession of the Oregon: a""^ »»»« the assertion of such a right is not reconcilable with the Convention of the Escurial, which was at that time binding on both Great Britain and Spain." , j„».„„,i The authority which Vancouver had, must and can only depend on the sole evidence of the British Government. He did othciaUy iff d II I MI I J JJHIP 'I K* !' ■-,■»••» '^ ■■•wi"-. x«»-iBi»i ■■ ■■■ Hti»_ /, r i " take possession ;" and he reported the fact to his Government. The Governiueut approved of what he had done ; his report of what he did was published by order of the Government ; and the Ikitisli Government onfirmed what he did and asserted public rights in consequence. 'J"he right of our Government to take possession of Oregon was perfectly reconcilable with the Convention of the Escunal. The IJritish Government did not then contemplate the folly, intro- duced in the discussions with the Government of the United States, of having a Joint occupancy of the country with Spain — a state of things in which no law could be administered. The Convention merely recognized the right of both countries — as a right common to both — to make settlements, under the control of their respective Governftients. The extent of territory with which any settlement should be actually connected depended on its locality, and the rules applicable to the extent of territory which might be claimed in connection with it, have been laid down by the American Govern- ment in its correspondence with Don Louis de Onis. In the first instance, it was necessary that the British Government should ascertain what part of the coast was waste, abandoned, or unoc- cupied, in order to ascertain where it was lawful to make settle- ments, and to prevent any conflict with Spanish authorities. This duty was performed by Vancouver, who took possession under the authority of his Government of the abandoned and waste terri- tory. After this was done, it still remained open to the Govern- ment to regulate any settlement which might be made, to define its limits, and to abandon, by distinct orders, what part of the tenitory it pleased, or impliedly to abandon it by not planting any settlement. Such proceedings were perfectly consistent with the Convention of the Escurial. By that agreement no right of sovereignty over the territory we might occupy was to be aban- doned. Subsequently the settlement on the Columbia was made. It was sanctioned and approved of by the British Government ; and it was the first settlement made on that part of the coast that received the sanction and authority of any Government. But if the British Government had not "taken possession" of the country, the Hudson's Bay Company could not nave had jurisdiction in it. Their authority can only be exercised within the limits of that terri- tory over which the Crown has declared its sovereignty to extend. Fourthly, Mr Greenhow asserts, that I misquoted him in citing a passage from his 'History' respcTing the northern limits of Louisiana. I reply, that h<* has n„ ^iound for the complaint. "The Spaniards," he said, "claimed the vast region called Louisiana, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico northward and north- westward to an undefined extent ;" but he now adds: — " I never said that Louisiana extended indefinitely northward at any time. On the contrary, I have proved that it was bounded in that direc- tion by the Hudson Bay territoiies. I showed that its boundaries on the cast were defined by the Treaty of 1763, and that on the north and north- west, they were undefined — that is, that they had not been defined by any agreement between the parties interested. Mr Falconer could not possibly be mistaken as to the difference between what I said and what he repre- sents me to have said. That Louisiana did not extend indefinitely to the north, no reasons were requited from Mr Falconer to prove ; and those '.liich Z hL any personaf interest. I am not responsible for the .lefects !!f his hist^.rV or the deficiencies of his argument I a^nmned tha he made the best statement his case enabled l"™ to do, ami 1 cited his book with every desire to do so fa rly, "9t;;'''J«^''»^;"K |^^^^^ charges to the contrary, as less open to contradiction than any other authority which 1 could produce. Two articles have lately appeared on this subject, the one in the 'ForeU Quarterly llevlew,' (No. 70 and the other in the EdinburgfReview.' ^Fhe former is written with great a bihty. and ^rves a very complete and admirable statement o? the l';«tory and nf the ar/uments of the case. The latter, which is an enlargement : an arS which was previously printed i" *.»»« '.'^''''"Jj;' "^Yl" naner? contains some sfngular inferences, which have not met with tKssent of persons who have examined this ques Hon. Nor is this surprising' for the author, in order to establish his inferences has reSed tile most important and ind sputable facts; a very unusual mode of dealing with evidence in this country. The writer of the article in the 'Kx.uniner' thus refers to the events whchfol owed the Convention of the Escunal, which adopting to the new American expression, he says, is called the «' Nootka Sound Convention : "— .. The northernmost point then occupic.l by Spain was ^"-^t^^J"";; ;„ lot qH° Next year. Cant. Vancouver was sent by the fcngii»n He tooK S*'^'"''"^ • , Qoo o(v to the Straits of St Juan de tuca, in lat. S" ¥hri7t^s"y he^TrLVbav^^^ '^at tlu. whole coast forih Jf the Spanish'^^ossessions should be open to the «-">;"?«"' °f"- ul .ecu of both nations, he quietly seued, in the name of ''« £"6 »[ appearthat any attempt was evtrm eomprehended by it, that retweTa^" i^'Sffunow under the 'undisturbed sovereignty of Mexico. . , -r. ■ • ^i. In referring to the same events in the ' Edinburgh Review, they are thus spoken of ; — >.T....i„» M. vm-u.«:. we trust without instmctioos, Vancouver was „ to "r.- .»™pSon o( ...ereignt, n,o,. rWi.ulou. than ...» th. S;^"yIb.uraUy oAueh tran«.tioni "e «r.t took po«...on m^^^^^^ r:ia'=.x';iafit.=£rp^iio^|.c^^^^^^^^ :SS&r-r'zit:^,;s;tS%=stj"u,p Russia, and the southern under that of Mexico. So far from the proceedings of Vancouver being ridiculous, they were necessary anS proper.^nd perfectly in conformity with the \ \ Y I teriiig of the Convention of tlio I'.H.nrinl. Wluit lie «li«l whh pul)- li»lif(l with till- Himction imd (vuthoriiy of tlie CioVirniiiriit, mid no nioro distinct upprovul mid confinniition of his proei'tiUn^rt i;ouhl hiivo hcin given. Th« Govornincnt of Simm ninde no rimon- Htnincc, nor did it coin|.hiin of any vi.diition of the terms of the Convention. If his nets hud not heen juat an.l proper, our Oovern- nient wonl.l not have given to them i)ul)licity or the aj.iirov.il wliieh they received ; nor wouhl the Government of bpam have allowed them to pass unccnsured. After the Treaty of the liscurial, it was just to declare over what i)art of the coast British settlements might he made m confornnty with the rights it sanctioned, 'i'o do this, Vancouver was sent to ascertain what j)art of the ooast was abandoned and unoccupied, and to determine the limits within wliich settlements could he made. IJy " taking possession " of the vacant coast, an inchoate right of sovereignty was established concurrent with the inchoate and imperfect right of sovereignty existing in the Si.anish Oovern- niciit— if such right existed after the Spaniards abandoned the coast. It did not supersede the necessity of occupation, but it anticipateil and prevented any renewal of disputes when any actual settlement should be officially sanctioned by the JJritish Government. ^ either did it imply or render necessary actual settlements throughout the whole extent of country thus taken possession of. It was a pro- ceeding jireliminary to the establishment of any scUlemeii^ Iho limits of subsetiuent occupation could not then he determined, as they could only be fixed by the position of any settlement that should be made. ^^.,11 That the .Mexican Government or that Russia should now enjoy part of the coast "taken possession of" by Vancouver, is per- fectly consistent with the claim asserted by the British Govern- ment ; for the claim contended for in the contest with Spain was not exclusive of that which any other country might establish by actual occupation. Our assertion of a right to make settlements was founded on the principle that a vacant and abandoned territory, not within the limits or control of any jurisdiction, is open to occu- pation by the subjects of any Government having its authority to settle in it and subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of their own country. , ^ If, by the stiitement that no attempt was ever made to act upon what is called " the absurd assumption of sovereignty," is meant that we have not continued to assert a title to the whole country "taken possession of "—rejecting the word " absurd "—this state- ment maybe assented to; and the reasons for not asserting so extensive a title have already been mentioned. But if it is meant that we have made no claim on account of this assumption of sove- reignty to any part of the country, the assertion is incorrect. In the British statement annexed to the protocol of the sixth confer- ence held at Lonron in 1826, the British negotiators did rely or the assertion of the title arising from the country having been .aken possession of by Vancouver. And in the earlier negotiations, tl o late Sir C. Bagot, the British Minister at Washington, declared— " That the post at the mouth of the Columbia bad not been cap- tured during the late war, but that the Americans had retired from it under an agreement with the North- West Company, which had purchased their efifects, and ever since retained peaceable possession ^^l^ljVjjpM HJ.VIU'l-L , '. ifsv: "-If^JISSs^ . 'T'Effl^?^-^'" I! 10 of the coast ; " and " that the territory itself was early taken possession of in his Majesty's name, and had since been considered as forming part of his Majesty's dominions." (Greenhow's ' History of Oregon,' pp. 307, 448). Can the reply to the revie-. er be more complete? _ .,,,•!. In a previous page other reasons have already been given why the British Government acted justly in " taking possession of the country ; and the imputation on its character, implied in the language of the reviewer, is not only improper, but is based on a rejection of the clearest facts, and then is used to colour uiferences drawn from an assumption of the absence of those facts ! Well might Lord John Russell say (August 0, 1845) "that nothing that he had read had shaken the opinions which he had previously ex- pr*!ssed upon this question." , , , • - c- The reviewer states (p. 257), in opposition to the declaration of bir C. Bagot, " that in the course of war between England and Ar.serica, Astoria was taken by a British force, the British standard hoisted, and the name changed to Fort George. This, he adds, is the only case in which any part of the Oregon territory has been occupied by any person under the authority of the British Government. In the first place, it was not taken, for the squatters, who had no title to be there, had sold their goody, and departed before the ' Racoon reached the place ; and secondly, the reviewer himself states, " that it is strange that a man of Mr Gallatin's ability should have re- lied [as a title to the territory] on the settlement made by Mr Astor. Omitting, for the present, the fatal objection that it was a private, not a Government enterprise,— it was a mere attempt to establish a trading post." If it did not form part of the territory of the United States, it could not have been taken from the Oovcrn- ment of that country ; and no public question can arise out of the private transactions of the persons who had retired from the place before the « Racoon ' reached it. If, under the pressure of expected hostilities, the post had been sold by the authority of public otfacers, it would not be just to assert that it had been voluntarily aban- doned i but in order to deprive the transaction of its private charac- ter, and to prove that the post was a proper subject of public demand, as a capture, it should be proved— which the reviewer admits it could not be— to have been within the jurisdiction of the Government of the United States. . „ . . , r^ i. The post was in the possession of the British Governi^ent when delivered up — not restored — conditionally to the United . States, and it was a possession against which no adverse public claim existed. The settlement, also, made at Vancouver, has been recognized and sanctioned by the British Government, ri'c P"or title, by occupation, to the Columbia river, and consequently to the territory drained by it, is vested in the British Government ; and if the settlement at Vancouver has not been extensively enlarged, it has arisen from the temporary engagements which the Britisb Government has entered into respecting the whole country. I do not think it to be necessary to correct certain other repre- sentations of facts, and inferences from them, made by the reviewer, which I think to be erroneous ; such as the inferences from the tact that the title to the land in Oregon is not vested in the Hudson s Bay Company ; his absurd opinions of the settlements contemplated under the Contention of the Escurial ; and other matters which 11 would only occasion a repetition of arguments already published j but there is dne statement respecting the doctrine of " contiguity entitled to notice. . . „ , i i, ii, o „«,„ When the doctrine of « contiguity was advanced by the Govern- ment of the United States, it was put forth as a sort of make- weiirht "—a consideration to settle equal, or what it treated as somewhat equally balanced claims. 'I'he reviewer, however, advo- cates it as a distinct doctrine of international law, wnctioned by the British Government. The question of what is fairly continuous territory, and of the extent of country which is necessary for the defence and safe occupation of it, is very different from contiguity as a substantive title, in which no such considerations are involved. For the deter: lination of the former some very clear and plain ru es have been laid down by the American Government itself. (1 amphlet on the 'Oregon Question,' 2nd edit., p. 31.) ' l>e l^tte^^ doctrine has no public sanction, that I am aware of. The reviewer states (n ".")0) " That one of the latest instances of its exercise is the refusal by England to allow any other nation to colonize the Chatham Islands." To these islands we have an undoubted right bv discovery, and the conduct of our Government has given no reason to allow it to be inferred that they have been abandoned, their very size not allowing any claim to them to be likened to the demand of Spain to the vast and enormous regions on the west coast of North America. The islands are under the instant and immediate control of our Government ; but the western coast of America was beyond any existing or proposed control of the Govern- ment of Spain. The political considerations in which all govern- ments hove an interest applicable to the two cases are perfectly But is the reviewer correct in citing the conduct of the British Government respecting the Chatham Islands in support of his doc- trine « I cannot find any authority whatever for the positive and distinct assertion which he has made. 1 have examined the official papers published on the subject, and printed by the New Zealand Company (pp. 87 d.— 94d.) ; and they do not contain an expression to justify his statement ; nor, indeed, could the occasion have brought the doctrine of « contiguity " under discussion. Ihe facts appear to have been as follow ;— . , ^, r, . j /-. In October, 1841, the Chairman of the New Zealand Company informed the Secretary for the Colonies that the Company was in treaty with certain parties officially connected with Hamburgh and other free cities of Germany, for the sale of the Chatham Islands. He accompanied this notification W'lh the assertion, that the Com- pany had bought the islands from th natives, and that these islands were an independent country, like New Zealand when certain trans- actions between the Government and the natives took place. This statement was erroneous, both as respected New Zealand and the Chatham Islands. Lord Stanlej; immediately, and most properly, peremptorily refused to allow this conveyance of the rights of the Crown to be made. The Company then disclaimed having, as a Company, bought the islands, or having done any corporate act whatever with reference to their disposal, though it appeared that an agent, " acting on behalf of the New Zealand Comnany, had entered into an agreement respecting them with the Syndicus Sieve- ^ /'' !l 12 Y.\ 22210 I king of Hamburgh. A communication was then ma