IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 7 // fj. ^j fj>° '^ &< «.*-^ '^^ W,: f<>/ ^ C/j V. 1.0 I.I 1.25 iM IIII 2.0 1-4 IIIIII.6 - 6" V] <^ /] /a '<^. /f;^ Photographic Sciences Corporation cF V ^q\' \ \ "^ V & <^ % A? U 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/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 Of-iginal crpy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique, ivhich may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D a n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or Illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 &vec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la mnrge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apperaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. The to tl L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci dessous. D D D E D □ D D D n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6e» Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es. tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d^tachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualitd in6gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire 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 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. The post oft! filmi Orig begi the I Ston othe first sion or ill The shall TINl whi: Map diffe entii begi righi requ met □ Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires: The map is a photoreproduction. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 2CX 24X 28X 32X ire details es du modifier er une filmage The copy filmod here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada 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. iea L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothSque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont ^t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de i'exemptaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre 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 commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — '»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaTtra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —^' signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". e 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 cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de r6duction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. f errata d to It le pelure, pon d I] 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 U E (I Jyi : ,.i.^.» ..— ■ -..^ — ,. ,p iTrann n -r i n iiii— THE O.AI.M OK THK UNITED t'TATES TO OREGON, AS STATED IN THE LETTtRS OF The TTox. J. C. CALHOUN and the JIox. J. BUCHANAN, (American Secretaries of State,) TO The Right Hon. R. PAKENHA3I, Her Dritainiic Majest//\s P/enipotenlian/. WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING THE COUNTER STATEMENT OF IMii. PAKENITAM TO THE AMERICAN SECRETARIES OF STi\TE. AND A MAP, SHOWING THE BOUNDARY LINE PROPOSED BY EACH PARTY. LONDON: WILEY AND PUTNAM, G, WATERLOO PLACE. LON'DO.V; {'rinti'ti by ^Vii i ta.m ('i,(>\vfs aiiii fMiv?, Siauifonl Stret-'t, INTIMII) U( TION. i'roin the Mess\ge of ^hc Presii)[-;nt oi' the Unitkd Statks to Conr/rcss, December. I'^if). My attention was early directed to the negotiation, which, on the 4th of March last, 1 found pending- at Washington between the United States and Great Britain, on the su])jc('t of the Oregon territory. — Three several attempts have been previ- ously made to settle the questions in dispute between the two countries, by negotiation, upon the principle of compromise : but each had proved unsuccessful. These negotiations took place at London, in the years 1818, 1824, and 1829; the two first under the administration of Mr. Monroe, and the last under that of Mr. Adams. The negoti- ation of 1S18 having failed to accomp>lish its object, resulted in the convention of the 20th of October of that year. By the third article of that convention, it was " agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the north-west coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harbours, bays and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers withjln the same, be free and open for the term of 10 years from the date of the signature of the present conven- tion to the vessels, citizens and subjects of the two Powers; it beino* well understood that this agreement is not to be con- strued to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high contracting parties may have to any part of the said country, nor shall it be taken to affect the claims of any other Power or State to any part of the said country; the only object of the /nfr;irti(.'.s in that, icsjk'cI Ixmiu;', ft) ]))'cvcnt »li^.]nitc'S inid (liiri'ivncc's :nii(»no' thenisclvcs." The lu'gotiation ol' IS24 was productive of no result, and tlie convention of IS18 was left unchanged. 'I'he n(>f>'otiati(m of iS2(), havini*' also failed to effect an adjustment by coin|)ronii,--e. resulted in the convention of Aui;ui)t the Tjth, J 827, by which it was a^^reed to continue in force, for an indefinite ]'eriod, the provisions of the third artich> of the convention of llie 20th of October, ISbS ; and it was further ])rovided, that " it shall be competent, however, to either of the contractini^ parties, in case either should think fit. at any time aftor the 2<)th of October, 1828, on givino- duo notice of 12 months to the other contracting party, to annul and abrogate this convention ; and it shall, in such case, be accordingly entirely annulled and abrogated after the expiration of the said term of notice." In these attempts to adjust the controxersy, the parallel of the 49th degree of north latitude had been offered by the United States to Great Britain, and in those of 1818 and 1826, with a further concession of the {'rec navigation of the Columbia River south of that latitude. Th [)arallei of the 49th degree, from the Roclvy Mountains to intersection with the north-easternmost branch of the ' 'olunibia, and thence down the channel of that river to the sea, had been offered by Great Britain, with an addition of a small detached territory north of the Columbia. Each of these propositions had been rejected by the parties respectively. In October, 1843, the Envoy f xtraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States in London, was authorised to make a similar offer to those made in 1818 and 182G. Thus stood the cpiestion, when the negotiation was shortly afterwards transferred to Washington : and, on the 23rd of August, 1844, Avas formally opened, under the direction of my immediate predecessor. Like all the previous negotiations, it w^as based upon principles of '■ compromise ;" and the avowed purpose of the parties was, " to iYcut of the respective claims of the two countries to the Oreoon territory, v/itli the view to cstal)lish a permanent boundary between them Westward of the Rocky Mountains to the Paciilc Ocean."' Acccn'dingly on the 2Gth of Tntnxhiction. II! ic Aufrnst, )8I'J. the !?ritisli Ploniijotciitiar}' oflVrid to divitlo tlic Oivj^'oii territory by tlie 4*)th })urnlk'l of iiorlh lalitiuJo from tlu' Iloclcy Mountains to the point of its iiiti'rst'ction with tiir nortli-castornniost branch of the Columbia Kivor, ami tlicMicf down that river to the sea ; leaving' the free navigation of the river to be enjoyed in comnK^n by both jtarlies — the country South of this lino to belong to the (J^nited States, and tliat North of it to Great Britain. At the same time, he projiosed, in addition, to yield to the Uniled Slates a detached territory, N(n*th of the Columbia, extending along the Pacific and the Straits of Fuca. i'rom 13ul finch's Harbour inclusive, to Hood's Canal, and to nuilvC i'ree to the United States any port or i)orts south of latitude 49 degrees, which they might desire, either on the main bind, or on Quadra and Vancouver's Island. With the exception of the free ports^ this was the same offer wiiich had been made by th( ^5ritisli, and rejected by the American Government in the negotiation of b-^'iC). This ])ro]H)sition was ])roperly rejected by the American Plenipotentiary on the day it was submitted. 'J'his was the only ])r{)position of compromise offered l)y the British Plenipotentiary, 'i he ])r(>pobiLion on the part of Great Britain having been rejected, the l>ritish Plenipotentiary requested that a ])roposal should be made bv the United States for "an ecpiitable adjustment of the question." When I came into ofllce, 1 found this to be the state of the neirotiation. Thouj'h cntertaininp; the settled conviction, that the British pretensions of title could not be maintaiiU'(i to any portion of the Oregon territory upon any principle of p'ublic law recognised by nations, yet, in deference to what had been done by my predecessors, and cR]K'cially in consideration that propositions of compromioe had been thrice made by two pre- cedhig acbninistrations, to adjust the question on the ])arallel of 49 deuTecs, and in tv/o of them yielainss and equity, and with the reasonable expectations of the I3ritish Government." The pro- ])()sition thus ollered and rejected, repeated the oiler of the Y)arallel of -W) dej^rees of north latitude, which had been made by two preceding administrations, but without proposini^ 1o surrender to Great Britain, as they had done, the free navijj^a- tion of the Columbia River. The ri<»;ht of any foreign Power to the free navigation of any of our rivers, through the heart of our country, was one which I was unwilling to concede. It also embraced a ])rovision to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on the Cape of Quadra and Vancouver's Island, soi.th of this parallel. Had this been a new cjuestion, coming under discussion for the first time, this proposition would not have been made. The extraordinary and wholly inadmissible dennmds of the British Government, and the rejection of the pro- j)osition made in deference alone to what had been done by my predecessors, and the im])liedobligation which their acts seemed to im])ose, afford satisfactory evidence that no compromise which the United States ought to accept, can be effected. With this conviction, the proposition of compromise w4iich had been made and rejected, was, by my direction, subsequently withdrawn, and our title to the wiiole Oregon territory asserted, and, as is believed, maintained by irrefragable facts and arguments. The civilized world will see in these proceedings a spirit of liberal concession on the part of the United States; and this Government will l)e relieved from all resiH)nsibility which may follow the failure to i^ettle the controversy. ^ r) i<<^^**% .N.-^S 1)\ ,\V ■>^»^ ,1"-: W, %> ^'>-/^'' y/«'' \> rs % :^ ^K« ^ i^J*'' »/«» ~''T .' VfO l.ungl NVrsi: I Mi uri.mnwi.h , itc \ •"i^"' ..o^" /A ft c/ T , ^1- V » \^' '"^ O 11 I ( "To •-i J.^=#^^^ '>»,i' »i«ft '•^-#4 ii»y '^"W.v;:,-;^''^^^^^ -''^'^^^'.s^;^ Co/, ""'^^^A/,, '<€ n 7 <'«/i'/'. /^''? ■ ^ -^; ■/■ l\ .^"^o^ si'J (' ■-/.._ r^ (/xdV'Mv/,^ k .. ■lt-:.f. .A r \ -Vi^ wC" ,4V"«"' rrfiifr-^yi "^c^ l^-^/^'' >'""^^"'Lrun'r^\ O / ?^ \ n»^ ^-"-^ v*o A\**' AOl>^- pr<""''_J5'»' A/A'* '''■^' KA'A' r/V'"" i '-^^ /..t p' ,r «^' .I**""' V l,\ l-u'"" ).»'/'' / lUf"*] !»■, |'»i< v. > : ^ i\o \ \ ^- \ \\\ Vl>0 ■'^dr"^'^ ,-"" r. f ^^/Jrrr It. '^ r'- ^•^>i.V*^:^',""' y^-'''; ,v^ .-J'. J-J^ I'"*''"'" A"-""^'''N«d!J"-"'^<''^ p><, f ly^'ipffooifi J^^ili^ '^i a- a / M\r Of riih: ^?J'l'2>^J\LIin '2i ^JiDi:L£ POJr/JDi^ia (? ^. ;.;^ *0 ^3^ ^*l .'1 ■WQ ^ THE HISTORY or CALIFORNIA, IRECON &mcothcCOUNTRIES rv////^ 4 . fonyaihi/ from ///< -^cw/ A/f^-rz/ff.-i /jy fi'o/ja-/ OtraA Otf ' \ MU . ThfpUutJ cf*>ku*Mu HumtJ .rf^for.Jf lh> *«"/««. V.y.,„., „ ^f/,.f,fudfj m<^,rfcl byHtfirrojiAf, =f it, ' i Longitude Wcsl '( torn Wash in oloii! , 'I' 8 I -J L_ LONI PUTW AM ^f. U V-, "■■J-. i I V r V ^__... — 1 ^f^.v X' '^/^"■i if"9" lo (/»■' ^^' VWIX'*"'? Jlfl'"^. c^" t-!''!^sft',.- r ^ r«.,My'S .-^^ \' A^'i^ iVTJDi^]5 (--^ vfc .*Mij ^ 4»? j6^^ IN &mcothcCOUNTRIES. >' A^'i:KiR.i:A H((^w, /I'f'iijf CJ //r ii'fitwUj infhi'LiUi '"tff tJfr (hmcn RE G N CORK K S \H)}i ]) K N C i:. (A.) jMr. Calhoun to M>\ Pa/wnham. \Vasliin-;ton, Scpt.3, 18+1. The undersigned, American Plenipotentiary, declines the pro- posal oCtae British Plenipotentiary, on the £^r<.inid that, it vvoidd have the effect of restricting the poss. «sions of the United States to limits far more circuinscrihed than their claiius clearly entitle ttiem to. It proposes to limit their northern boundary by a line drawn from the Rockv Mountains along the 49lii parallel of latitude to t!ie north-easiernmo.-t branch of the Columbia river, and thence down the middle of that river to the sea — givin^^ to Great Critain all the country north, and to the United States all south, of that line, except a detached territory (extending on the Pacilic and tlie Straits of Fuca, from Bulfmch's Harbour lo [lood's Canal. To which it is pro[)03cd, in addition, to make free to the United Stales any port which the United States Government might desire, either on the main land or on Vancouver's Island, south of latitude 4yth degree. By turning to the map hereto annexed, and on wuicli the proposed boundary is marked in pencil, it will bo seen that it as- signs to Great r>ritain almost the entire region (on its north side) drained by the Columbia river, lying on its northern bank. It is not deemed necessary to state at large the claims of the Uuiied States to this territory, and the grounds on wlileli they ro-r, in order to make good the assertion tliat it restricts tlie pos^essioii- oi the Unili'd Stales within narrower bounds than they are clearly entitled to. It will be sufficient for this purpose to show that they K 2 Orcr/on : Statement of the Claini arecloarly entitled to the entire reofion drained by the river ; and to the establishment of tlii^ ])()int the undersign. -d proposes accord- ingly to limit his remarks at present. Our claims to the portion of ll'.e territory drained by tlie Co- hirnbia river may l)e divided into those we have in oiu" own proper right, ami those we have derived from France and S]3ain. We iiround the former, as a "gainst Great Britain, on priority of disco- very and priority of exploration and settlement. We rest om- claim to discovery, as against her, on that of Captain Gray, a citizen of the United States, who, in \\\? ship Coliinihia, of Boston, passed its bar and anchored in the river, 10 miles above itsmonth, on the 1 1th of May, 1792, and who afterward':! sailed up the river 12 or 15 miles^ antl leit it on the 2<)di of the same month, calling it Columbia, aftei- his ship, which name it still retains. On these facts our claim to the discovery ai"d entrance into the river rests. They are too well attested to be controverted; but they have been opposed by the allejjpd discoveries of Meares and Vancouver. It is true that th.^ former explored a portion of the coast through which the Columbia flows into the ocean, in 178S (five years before Captain Gray crossed the bar and anchored in the river), in order to ascertain whether the river, as laid down in the Spanish charts, and called the St. Roc, existed or not; but it is equally true that he did not even discover it. On the con- trary, he expressly declares, in his account of the voyage, as the result of his observations, that '' we can now safely assert that there is no such river as that of the St. Roc, as laid dow^n in the Spanish charts ;" and, as if to perpetuate his disappointment, lie called the promontory lying north of the inlet where he expected to discover it, Cape Disappointment, and the inlet itself Deception Bay. It is also true that Vancouver, in April, 1792, explored the same coast ; but it is no less so thti'; lie failed to discover the river, of which his own journal furnishes the most conclusive evidence, as well as his strong conviction that no such river existed. So strong was it, indeed, that when he fell in with Captain Gray, shortly afterwards, and was informed by him that he had been off the mouth of a river in latitude 46" 10', whose outlet was so strong as to prevent his entering, he remained still incredulous, and strongly expressed himself to that effect iri his JK)uriial. It lh( cii of the Untt'd Shttcs. r ; and to L»s accord- V tlio Co- wii proper );iin. We ; ot" disco- rosl our 1 (jiay, a of llostoii, ifs mouth, ^ tlie river Uli, calling ranee into [Mroverted; of Meares I portion of > ocean, in d anchored 3 laid down or not ; but 3n the con- r'nge, as the assert that iown in the intment, ho he expected f Deception explored the er the river, ve evidence^ existed. So .ptain Gray, lad been off' LJtlet was so incredvdous, journal. It I was shortly after this interview thai Captain Orny aoain visited ivs mouth, crossed its bar, and sailed up the river, as l.ns been staled. After he left it he visited \ootka Sound, where h" loninuniicated his discoveries to (Quadra, the Spanish connnandant at ihat place, and gave him a chart and description of the mouth of the river. After his tlepartur(\ Vancouver arrived there in September, when he was informed of the discoveries of Captain Gray, and obtained from Q ladra copies of the chart he had leli with him. \\\ coii-jo- quence of the information tluis obtained he was induced to vi^it again that part of the coast. It was during this visit thai he en- tered the river on the 20lh of October, and made his survey. From these facts it is manifest, that the allejxed discoveries of IMeares and Vancouver cannot, in tlie slightest decree, shake the (daim of Captain Gray to priority of discovery. Indeed, so con- (dusive is the evidence in his favotn^ that it has been attempted to evade our claim on the novel and wholly untenabl;' ground liiat liis discovery was made, not in a national, but a j^rivate vesstd. Such, and so incontestable is the evidence of our el; ini as against Great Britain — from priority of discovery, as to tiie mouth of the river, crossing its bar, entering it, and saihng up its stu'am — on the voyago of Captain Gray alone, without taking into consideration the prior discovery of the S[)anish navigator, Ileceta, which will be more particularly referred to hereafter. Nor is the evidence of the priority of our discovei-y of the head-branches of the riven* and its (exploration less conclu-^ive. Before the troaty was ratified by which we acquired Louisiana, in 1803, an expedition was planned — at the head of which v ere placed JMeriwether Lewis and William Clarke — to explore the river Missouri and its principal branch. >s to their sotu'ces, and tlien to seek and trace to its termination in the Pacific some stream, "whether the Cohmibia, the Oregon, the Colorado, or any olher which might ofler the most direct and practicable water connnu- nlcation across the continent, for the purpose of conmieice." Tiie party began to ascend the Missoiu'i in May, 1^01, and. in th' sunmier of 1805, reached the head-waters of the Columbia river. After crossincT many of the streams falliiig into it, thev rcacdi.'d the Kooskooskee, in latitude 43 34' — descended hat to ih'.- \)\'m- cipal northern branch, which they called Lewis's— ibdowed that 6 Oregon : Statcinent of thr Chiim i lo its juiu'tion with the groat nortlicrn brnncli, whicli thoy ciillcd Clarke — and tliciu'o doficc'iidi'd to tlic niiutli of thf rivor, wlicro tlu'V landed, and iiel. Nor is our priority of s-ttlement less certain. Establislmients were formed by American citizens on the Columbia as early as 1809 and 1810. In the latter year a company a\ as foimed in New York, at the h; ad of which was John .Jacob Astor. a weal thy nier- cliaiit of that city, the objeet of which was to form a regidar cliain {if establishmen'is on the Columbia river and the contiguous coasts of the Pacilic, for commercial puqDOses. ll^arly in the spring of J(Sll, they made their first estabiishment on the south side of the river, a few miles above Point C>corge^ where tliey were visited, in July following, by i\Ir. Thompson, a surveyor and astronomer of the North-west Company, and his party. They had been sent out by that company to forestall the .Vmerican Company in occupying the mouth of the river, but found themselves defeated in their object. The American Com})any formed two other connected establishments higher up tlu^ river : one at the conlluence of Oka- nogan with the north branch of the Columbia, about (JOO miles above its mouth; and the other on the Spokan, a stream falling into th(> n()rih branch, some r)0 niiles above. i an b.> Si. S; A I re thi St pi vM hoy ciillc'd V Disa})- )HUiiencod vtM', noting ipal ; Jind ;\n absence the know- I'ar on the nchcs, and s to whit'li nany years Mt Bvilain, ;ie('. It as 'I'y as to its md rtoion 'ay and the I'Llereuce to ablishments as early as nod ill Now i'-oaiti'v nier- ?<:idar eJiain .(uous (.'Oil sis 10 s])rin$4 of side of the e v' sited, in trononier of leen sent out n occupying ited in tlicir ii" connected ince of Oka- it GOO miles I (fthf United Htates ThtN(^ posts passed into the possession of Or.^nl Britain (hiring till" \v;ir which was diokirod tlio next year, lii-l it w:is i->rovi(kMl l)v tlio lirst article of the triMty of (ihoiit, niiieh terniinnted it, that " all trnilorios, ])laces, and po'-sessions \vhato\er, taken l)y (>itlu'r [larty IVorii the other during the war, or which may i;o taken after signing of the treaty, e.\co|)ting tlie iskinds lieroaftor mentioned (in th(^ Hav of l"'undv). shall bo restored without delay." Under diis })rcvision, which embraces all the establishments of the Ame- rican Coinpnny on the Columbia, Astoria was formally reslored, on tho Oth oi' October, INJS, by agents duly imthorised on the j)art of the British (jovcrnment to restore the possession, anil lo an agent duly autlnu'ised on the part of the Government of the I'nitod Suites to receive it — which placed our possession where it was liefore it passed into the lumds of British subjoets. Such are the fixcts on which we rjst our claims to })rio]-ity of discovery and priority of exploration and settlement, as against Great Britain, to the recrion ('"ained by the Cobunbi;i river. So much for the claims we h;ive, in our own proper right, to that rcifion ream falli IMi r> To these we have added the claims of J'ranc^^ and Spain. The former we obtaiueil by the treaty of Louisiana, ratified in 1803; and the latter by the treaty of Florida, ratified in ISIU. By the former we acquireiid parallel of latitude, from a point on the south bank of the Arkansas, in that parallel, to the South Sea— that is, to the whole region claimed by Spain west of those mountains, and noi h of that line. The cession of Louisiana gave us undisputed title west of the Mississippi, extending to the summit of the Rocky Mountains, and stretchino- south between that river and those mountains to the possessions of Spain, tbe line between which and ours was after- wards determined by the treaty of Florida. L also added much 8 Oregon: Statement of the Claim to the stiviitrfh of o\ir title to the region beyond iho Rocky Moun- tains, bv restorinsf to ns tlie iniportant link of* contiMnitv westward to tlie Pacilie, wliicli liad been surrendered by the treaty of 1703 — as will be hereafter sliown. That continuity furnishes a just foundation for a claim of ter- ritory, in connexion with those of di-eovery and oei'upalion, would seem unquestionable. It is admitted by all, that neither of thetn is limited by the in'ocise spot discovered or occupied. It is evident, that in order to make cither avaihd)le, it must ext(3nd at least some distance beyond that actually discovered or occupied, but how far, as an abstract question, is a matter of uncertainty. It is subject, in each case, to be inlluenced by a variety of considera- tions. In the case of an island, it has been usually maintained in practice, to extend the claim of discovery or occupancy to the whole. So, likewise, in the case of a river, it has been usual to extend them to the entire region drained by it, more especially in cases of a discovery and settlement at the mouth ; and emphati- cally so, when accompanied by exploration of the river and region through which it flows. Such, it is believed, may be affirmed to be the opinion and practice in such cases, since the discovery of this continent. How far the claim of continuity may extend in other cases is less perfectly defined, and can be settled oiily by reference to the circumstances attending each. When this con- tinent was fir^v discovered, Spain claimed t!.e whole, in virtue of the jTivuit of the Pope ; but a claim so extravagant and unreason- able was not acquiesced in by other countries, and could not be long maintained. Other nations, especially England and France, at an early period contested her claim. They fitted out voyages of discovery, and made settlements on the eastern coasts of North America. They claimed for their settlements, usually, specific limits along the coasts or bays on which they were formed, and, generally, a region of corresponding width, extending across the entire continent to the Pacific Ocean. Such was the character of the limits assigned by England, in the charters which she granted to her fornier colonies, now the United States, when there were no special reasons for varying from it. How strong she regarded her claim to the region conveyed by these charters, and extending westward of her settlements, the war ex; con evi se\( Mi sh; rivi the lak sip 1w Fr ly. ri" oj the United States. ly Moiin- wcstward of 1 /'()3 m of tcr- •cupntlon, ncillior (jf 0(1. It is extontl ut occupied, tuiiity. It coiisKlera- ntaiiK'd in lev to tlio a usual to specially in 1 enipliati- and region afllrnied to liscovery of f extend in ,ed only by :n this coii- in virtue of 1 un reason- not be long France, at voynges of ts of North ly, specific )rmed, tuul, ^ across the haracter of ?he granted lere were no onvcyed by nts, the war I I l)otween her and France, which was torui'nated by I ho tr ;ity of l'ari<, 17<')-^, furnishes a si rik'njj ilhistiiition. 'I'hal jrreat content, which ended so gloriou'^ly for Tji^land, and 'IlictcMl so great and durable a chauiiHi on ihis continent, couuucnced in a c.inniel l)etween iier claims and those of France, resting on iier side on this very right of contin\iity, extending wes'waid from lier seftli'- inents to the l^iciiic Ocean, and on the part of France, on the same right, but extending to the region drained by the Miv^ssippi and its waters, on the ground of settlement and exploration. 'I'heir respective claims, which led to tiiu war, fu'sl clashed on the Ohio river, the waters of whicli the colonial charters, in their western extension, covered, but which France had been uncpies- tionably the first to settle and explore. If '.he r('lativ(» strength of these different claims may be tested by the resuli of that re'.nark- able contest, that of continuity westward must ! e pronounced to be the slrouirer of the two. England has had at least the advantage of the residt, and would seem to bo foreclosed against contesting the principle — particularly as against us, whocon'ri- butod so nuicli to that rosult, and on whom that contest, and hei- exam])le, and her ])rotensions, from the first settlem.Mit of our country, have contributed to impro --s it so dee})ly and ii;delibly. But the treaty of 17C)'3, wliicli terminated that memorable and evi>ntful struggle, yielded, as has been staved, the claims and all the chartered rights of the colonies beyond tfie ]Mississi])pi. The seveiith article establishes that livor as th(^ permaiieMit boundary between the possessions of Great Britain and France on this continent. So much as relates to the subject is in the following Words: — *' The coufnies between the dominions of His Britannic Majesty in that part of the world (the contiuv'iit of America) shall be fixed irrevocably by a line diawn along the middle of the river Mississippi, from its sovn'ce to tlio river Iberville; antl from thence by a line drawn alou"- the middle of this river, and the lakes Maurnas and Pontciiartrain, to ihe sea," &c. This ini})ortant siijiulation, which thus establishes the Missis- sippi as the line " fixed irrevocably"' between the domhiions of the two countries on this continent, in etl'ect extinguishes in favour of France wliatever claim Great Britain may have had to the roirion lying west of the Mississippi. It of course could not alfect the rights of Spain — the only other nation which had any pretence 10 Orcf/ixi : i^tctriftrn/ nf f/te Vhiini of claim west, of thnt river; but it prcvontod tlio rijrlit of coiitintiity ]>roviously cliiiined hy (»rcjjt iJritain !Voin oxtcjuliii!': beyond it, and Iraiisfciivd it to l''iiinci». 'J'lio trcaly of Loui-inna n.-slorod and vested in the United Slates all the ciaiinH acqiilrcil by France and surrendered by (ireat Jiritain, under the i)n)visit)ns of tiiat treaty, to the country west of the iMississipj)i, and, anion;,'' others, the one in question. Certain it is that I'lance iiad (lie same ri«;lit of continuity, in virtue of iicr possession of Louisiana, and the exlin^uislunent of llio rijrht of Mnohunl, by liie treaty of J7G3, to the whole country wc^-^t of the Kocky Mountains, and lyiu^ west of Louisiana, as a«j;ainst Spain, which England had to tiie country westward of the yMleghany Mounlains, as afrainst France — with this dilVereuce, that Spain had nothinjr to oppose to the claim of l<>ance at the time but the right of discovery, and even that England has since denied; while France had opposed to the right of England, in her case, that of discovery, exjjloration, and scltloment. It is therefore not at all surprising that France should claim the country west of the Rocky Moinitains (as ruay be inferred from her maps}, on the same princi]!le that (jireat Britain liad claimed and dispossessed her of the regions west of the AUc- j^haiiy ; or that the United States, as soon as they had acquired the riglils of France, should assert the same claim, and take measures immediately after to explore it, with a view to occ.ipation and seltlement. But since then, wo have strengthened our title, by adding to our own jiroper claims, and tho.e of France, the claims also of Spain by the treaty of Florida, as has l)een stated. The claims which we have acquired from her between the Rocky Mountains and tlie Pacific rest on her piiuiity of discovery. Numerous voyages of discovery, conunencing with that of Mai- donado, in ir)'J8, and ending with tiiat under Galiano and Valdes, in 1792, were undertaken by her authority along the north- western coast of North America. I'hat they discovered and explored not only the entire coast of what is now called the Oregon territory, but still further north, is a fact too well established to be controverted at this day. The voyages which they performed will accordingly be passed over at present without being particularly alluded to, with the exception of that of Heceta. His discovery of the mouth of the Columbia river has been already referred to. It wat made on the liV.ii of A.ugust, Ul tl; ili I uj the ClniU'd Sfafn.s. II continuity I'yoiul it, ii.i rt'slorod by I'' ranee ons of tiiat lon^' f)flj('rs, aino ri<:lit I, and tlio yof 17G3, and lyin, many years anterior to the voya^ev* ,jf Mearis and Van- rouvep, and wa<« prwa' to ("oolv's, who did not reach the norlli- wesiern coast until \77'^. The elaiins it rhll'ully acipiired both those of »Spain and rrance, and concen- tratetl the whole in otn* hands, they mutually blend widi eachotl'er, aiul form one strong; and tonn-'cted chain of titlo iiuainst the op- posing claims ol'all others, inciudiii <»ro\nids on which our claims to the region in (piestion rest, it will now bo nrce-^sary to turn biick to lh(; time when Astoria was restored to us, u:ider the ])rovisions of the treaty of (jllient, and to trace what has since; occurred between the two counti ies in referonco to th(> territory, and inquire whiMher their respective claims have been affected by the settlements since made in the territory by (ireat Britain, or the occurrences which have since taken place. 'I'he restoration of Astoiia took place, lUiiler the provisions of thv' treatv of Ghent, on the 6th day of October, 1818, the eHiet of whicli was to put Mr. Prevost, tiieainMit autlioriscd by our Govern- uient to receive it, in possession of the establisliuKMit, with the right 111 ai; times to be reinstated and considered the party in possession, as was explicitly admitted by Ford Castlereagh in the lirst nego- tia.i ion between ihe two Governments in referc.^c.'- to the treaty. Tile words of Mv. Rusii, our 'Meiiipotentiary on that occasion, in liis letter to Mv. Adams, then Secretary of Slate, of the Fltli of l''(>l)ruary, 1818. rejiorting what ];assv{l between him and his Lord- ^hip, are, "that Lord Castlereaj^h admitted in the most amjjle ex- tent oui- rli;lit to be reinstated and to be tiie j'arty in possession, whih' trealinii' of the title.' That ne'Totiatioa tiMnninatod in the convention of the '20A\ of OelobvM-. 181s, the third arlick> of which is in the following- words : — • •« 12 Oregon : Sfafcmcitt of the CIdini "It is af]^rcod that any covinlry that may be claimed hy either party on tL..> north-west coast of America, westward of ihe Stony Mountains, shall, tof^ether with its harbours, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be i'ree and open ibr the term of ten years from the date of tlie signature of the present convention, 1o the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers ; it beinsr well understood that this ajrroement is not to be construed to the ])rejiidice of any claim which cither of the two high contract- ing parties may have to any part of the said country ; nor shall it be taken to all'ect the claims of any other power or state to any part of the said country; the only object of the high contracting parties in that rci^pect being to prevent disputes and diflerences amongst themscives.'* The two acts, the restoration of our possession and the signa- ture of llie convention, were nearly contemporaneous — the lattei- taking p;hce but 14 days subsequently to the ibrmer. We were then, as admitted by Lord Castlereagh, entitled lobe considered as the party in possession; and the convention, which sti})ulated diat ihe territory should be free and open for the term of ten years i'rom the date of its signature, to the vessels, citizens, and subject; *f the two coiuUries, without ])reju(lice to any claim which either parly ma\ have to any part of the same, preserved and perpetuated all our thiinis to the territory, including the acknowledged right to be con-idered the party in possession, as perfectly during the period of its continuance as they were the day the convention was signed. Of this there can be no doubt. After an abortive attempt to adjust the claims of the two parties to tiie territory, in 1^24, another nego'iation was com- menced in ISlT), which terminated in renewing, on the Oth of AiJgu^:t, 1S27, the third article of the convention of 1818, prior to its expiration. It provided for the indefinite extension of all the provisions of the third article oft hat convention, and also that either party miirht tcrminato it at any time it mioht think fit, by crivina- one yvi'.r's notice after the 'iOth of Octobi-r, 18*28. It took, how- evtM', the precaution of providing expressly that " nothing contained in this convention, or in the third article of the coiuentio'i of tlie 20th of October, 1818. hei-eby continued in force, shall be con- strued tc imjjair, or in ;niy manner atlecl, tlie claitn> which either ■J of the Unltal States. 13 atid ibr ofllie contractinrif parties may have to any part, of the country wo-itward of the Stony or rJockv INTountains." Thai convention is now in lorcc, a!id has continued to bo so since l]i;> oxpira'ion of that of 18 is. By the joint operation of th^^ two. our riijht to bo considered the p;'.rty in posse-sion, and all the claims we had to the territory while in possession, are preserved in as full viijour as they were at the date of its restoration in L*!JlS. witlioiit beinrninuity, has greatly str', ngihened, during the same period, by tiie rapid advance of our population iowards the territory, — its great increase, especially in tho valley of the Mississippi, — as well as the ^-reatly increased facility of passing to the territory by more accessible routes, and the far stronger and rapidly-swelling tide of population that has recently conunenced tlowin(£ into it. When the first convention was concluded, in 1818, our whole population did not exceed 9,000,000 of people. The portio.i of it inhabiting die states in die great valley of the Mississippi was pro- bably under 1,700,000, of which not more than 200,000 were on the west side of the river. Now our population may be safely estiuiated at not less than 19,000,000— of which at least 8,000,000 inhabit the states and territories in the valley of the Mississippi, and of which uj)wards of 1,000,000 are in the states and territories west of that river. This portion of our population is now incieas- ing far moru rapidly than ever, and will, in a short time, lill the whole tier of states on its western bank. To this great increase of population, especially in the vailey of tlie Mississippi, may be added the increased facility of reaching 14 Oref/on : Stcdemovt nj' fh'.' Chum tlic Oroii^on torritory, hi conseqiuMico oltlio (liscowiv ol' tlu' i\- niarkable piiss in the Rock}' Mountains at tlio honil oi'tlieLn Platte. The depi-ession is so great, and the ]}ass ho smooth, that loaded waggons now triu'.-l with I'acility from Missouri to the navi- gable waters of the Cohinibia river. These joint causes have hud the effect of turning the current of our population towards the terri- tory, and an emigration estimated at not loss than 1,000 during the Insl, and 1,500 during the present year, has flowed into il. The current thus conuiiencod will no doubt coiitinue to flow witli increased volume horoafler. There can, then, be no doubt now that the operation of the same causes v/hich impelled our popula- tion westward f"om ihe shores of the Atlantic, across the AUegliany to the valley of the Mississippi, will impel them onward v«^itli accumulating force across tlio Kocky Mountains into the valley of the Columbia, and that the whole region drained by it is destined to be peo])led by us. Such are our claims to that portion of the territory, and the grounds on which they rest. 'i'tie undersigned believes them to be well founded, -mtl trusts that the Britisli Plcnipoti^ntiarv will see in tlicm sufficient reasons why he should decl.ue his pro- posal. The undersigned Plenij.otentiary abstaiyis for tlie present from presenting the claims which the United States may have to other portions of the territory. The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to rnic \v t,) the British Plenipotentiary the assurance of his high considtn'ation, R. Pakcnham, Esq., J. C. Calhoun. (B.) Dcpnrtment of Slate, Washington, 2UthSei)tenihef, IS'll. The undersigited, American Plenipotentiary, has read with attention the counter-statement of the British Plenipotentiary, but without weakening his coniidence in the validii}' of the lilie of the United States to the territory, ns set forti] in liis staiemi^nt (marked A.) As therein set forth, it rests, in tlie lirst place, on priority of discovery, sustained by their own projior claims, and those derived from Spain through the treaty of Florida. s he of the United States. 15 The undersigned doos not understand the counter-statement as denyinoten- rltain, )n the lit able I have which Dry, to ent, as t to a to any rder in present I valley Presi- ^g con- ;en the Oregon Elussian , treaty, in ceded ons" to le 32nd cession, le whole in is de- step by IS of the I Spain, Great Britain contends that, luider this convention, the title ot' Spain was limited to a mere common riofht of joint occupancy with lierself over the whole territory. To employ the language of the British j)loiiipotontiary : " If Spain could not make good her own riglit of exchisive dominion over those regions, still less could she confer such a right on another power; and hence Great Britain argues that from nothing deduced from the treaty of 1819 can the United States assert a valid claim to exclusive dominion over any part of the Oregon territory." Hence it is that Great Britain, resting her pretensions on the NootVa Sound convention, has necessarily limited her claim to a mere right of joint occupancy over the whole ter- ritory, in common with the United States, as the successor of Spain, leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abeyance. It is, then, of the first importance that we shoidd ascertain the true construction and meaning of the Nootka Sound con- vention. If it should appear that this treaty was transi ,ii in its very nature — that it conferred upon Great Britain no riglit but that of merely trading with the Indians while the country should remain unsettled, and making the necessary establishments for this pm-- pose — that it did not interfere with the ultimate sovereignty of Spain over the territory ; and, above all, that it was annulled by the war between Spain and Great Britain, in 1796, and has never since been renewed by the parties — then the British claim to any portion of this territory will prove to be destitute of any foundation. It is unnecessary to detail the circumstances out of which this convention arose. It is sufficient to say that John Meares, a British subject, sailing under the Portuguese flag, landed at Nootka Sound, in 1788, and made a temporary establishment there for the purpose of building a vessel ; and that Spaniards, in 1789, took possession of this establishment, under the orders of the Viceroy of Mexico, who claimed for Spain the exclusive sovereignty of the whole territory on the north-west coast of America up to the Russian line. Meares appealed to the British Government for redress against Spain, and the danger of war between the two nations became imminent. This was prevented by the conclusion of the Nootka Sound convention. 22 Orcfjon: Statement i)J' the Claim Tliat convention proNidos, l)y its first and second articles, for the restoration of the lands and buildings of which the subjects of (ireat Britain had been dispossessed by the Sj)aniards, and the payment of an indemnity for the injuries sustained. This in- demnity was paid by Spain ; but no sufficient evidence has been adduced, that either Nootka Sound, or any other spot upon the coast, was ever actually surrendered by that power to Great Britain. All we know with certainty is, that Spain continued in possession of Nootka Sound until 1795, when she vohmtarily abandoned the place. Since that period, no attempt has been made (unless very recently) by Great Britain, or her subjects, to occupy either this or any other part of Vancouver's island. It is thus manifest, that she did not formerly attach much im- portance to the exercise of the rights, whatever they may have been, which she had acquired under the Nootka Sound con- vention. The only other portion of this convention important for the present discussion will be found in the 3rd and the 5th Articles. They are as follows : — " Art. 3. In order to strengthen the bonds of friendship, and to preserve in future a perfect harmony and good understanding between the two contracting parties, it is agreed that their respective subjects shall not be disturbed or molested either in navigating or carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean or in the South Seas, or in landing on the coast of those seas in places not already occupied, for the purpose of car- rying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or of making settlements there; the whole subject, nevertheless, to the restrictions specified in the three following articles." The ma- terial one of which is — " Art. 5. As well in the places which are to be restored to the British subjects, by virtue of the first article, as in all other parts of the north-western coasts of North America, or of the islands adjacent, situate to the north of the parts of the said coast already occupied by Spain, wherever the subjects of either of the two powers shall have 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 molestation."' It may be observed as a striking fact which must have an im- of the Uiiitcit States. 23 portiint beariiifT against tlio claim of Circat Riitaiii. thai this con- vcntio!!, \\\\\c\\ was dictated by her to Spain, contains no provision inipairinir the idtiniate sovereignty which that power liad asserted for nearly three centuries over the whole western side of North America as far north as the Gist degree of latitude, and which had never been seriously questioned by any European nation. I'his right has been maintained by Spain with the most vigilant jealousy ever since the discovery of the American continent, and had been acquiesced in by all European Governments. It. luul been ad- mitted even beyond the latitude of 51 40' north by Russia, then the only power having claims which could come in collision with Spain ; and that too under a sovereign peculiarly tenacious of the territorial rights of her empire. This will appear from the letter of Count de Fernan Nunez, the Spanish ambassador at Paris, to M. de Montmorin, the Secre- tary of the Foreign Department of France, dated Paris, June JGth, 1790. From this letter, it seems that complaints had been made by Spain to the court of Russia against Russian subjects for violating the Spanish territory on the north-west coast of America, south of the Gist degree of north latitude ; in consequence of which, that court, without delay, assured the King of Spain "that it was extremely sorry that the repeated ordors issued to prevent the sub- jects of Russia from violating, in the smallest degree, the territory belonging to another power, should have been disobeyed." This convention of 1790 recognizes no right in Great Britain, either present or prospective, to plant permanent colonies on the north-west coast of America, or to exercise such exclusive jurisdic- tion over any portion of it as is essential to sovereignty. Great Britain obtained from Spain all she then desired — a mere engage- ment that her subjects should " not be disturbed or molested " *' in landing on the coasts of those seas in places not already occu- pied, for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or of making settlements there." What kind of settlements ? This is not specified; buc surely their cha- racter and duration are limited by the object which the contracting parties had in view. — They must have been such only as were neces- sary and proper " for tlie purpose of carrying on commerce with the natives of the country." Were these settlements intended to 21 () n't/on: St aft: men f t>f the Chiiin expand into colonics, to cx})cl tlic natives, to dcprivo Spain of licr sovcroi«»'n ri«(ljts, and to confer tlic cxclnsivt; jnrisdiction over tlic \vlk)l«' tcnilory on (j'rcut Britain ? Sun'ly, Spain never desijifni'd any such results; and if Great Hrilain has obtained tliese conces- sions l)y tlie Nootka Sound convention, it lias heen l)y the most extraordinary construction ever imposed upon human lan the latter date. The first of the addhional articles of this trc\ ty provides as follows: " It is agreed that pend- ■20 Oreyoa: Statement of tlw Claim in^ the iicf^ollalion of a new treaty of commerce, Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with Spain upon the same conditions as those wliich existed previous to 1700; all the treaties of com- merce whicli at that period subsisted between the two nations beiiij^ liej-eby ratilied and confirmed." The first observation to be made upon this article is, that it is confined in terms to [the trade with Spain, and does not embrace her colonies or remote territories. These had always been closed against foreign powers. Spain had never conceded the privilege of trading with her colonies to any nation, except in the single in- stance of the Asiento, which was abrogated in 1740 ; nor did any of the treaties of commerce which were in force between the two nations previous to 1795 make such a concession to Great Britain. That this is the true construction of the f.rst additional article of the treaty of Madrid, appears conclusively fi-om another part of the instrument. Great Britain, by an irresisdble inference, ad- mitted that she had acquired no right under it to trade with the colonies, or remote territories of Spain when she obtained a stipu- lation in the same treaty, that, ''in the event of the commerce of the Spanish American possessions being opened to foreign nations, his Catholic Majesty promises that Great Britain shall be admitted to tnide with those possessions as the most favoured nation," J5ut even if the first additional article of the treaty of 1814 were not thus expressly limited to the revival of the trade of Great Britain w ith the kingdom of Spain in Europe, without reference to any other portion of her dominions, the Nootka Sound convention can never be embraced under the denomination of a treaty of commerce between the two powers. It contains no provision whatever to grant or to regulate trade between British and S})anish subjects. Its essential part, so far as concerns the pre- sent quest ion, relates not to any trade or commerce between the subiects of the respective powers; it merely prohibits the subjects of either from distvnbinjj or molestinjr those of the other in tradingf or) c? with third parties — t)ie natives of the country. The " grant of making settlements,'' whether understood in its broadest or most restricted sense, relates to territorial acquisition, anil nol to trade or commerce in any imaginable tbrm. The Nootka Sound convention, then, cannot, in any sense, be consi- of the United States. 27 (lered a treaty of comniorce, and was not, therefore, revived by the treaty of Madrid of 1814. When the war commenced be- tween Great Britain and Spain in 1796, several treaties snbsisted between them, wliich were, l^oth in title and substance, treaties of commerce. These, and these alone, were revived bv the treaty of 1814. That the British government itself had no idea in 1818 that tlie Nootka Sound convention was then in force, may be f-tirly inferred from their silence upon the subject during tli(» whole negotiation of that year on the Oregon question. This convention was not once referred to by the British plenipotentiaries. They then rested their claims upon other foundations. Surely that which is now their main reliance would not ha\e escaped the observation of such statesmen had they then supposed 't was in existence. In view of all these considerations, the undersigned respectfully submits that if Great Britain has valid claims to any portion of the Oregon territory, they must rest upon a better foundation than tl. t of the Nootka Sound convention. It is far from the intention of the undersigned to repeat the argument by which his predecessor (Mr. Calhoun) has demon- strated the American title '• to the centre region drained bv the Columbia river and its branches." He has shown that to the United States belongs the discovery of tlie Columbia river, and that Captain Gray was the first civilized man who ever entered its mouth and sailed up its channel, baptizing the river itself with the name of his vessel ; that Messrs. Lewis and Clarke, under a commission from their Government, first explored the waters of this river almost from its head springs to the Pacific, passing the winter of 1805 and 180G on its northern shore near the ocean; that the first settlement upon this river was made by a citizen of the United States, at Astoria ; and that the British Govenmient solemnly recognised our right to the })ossession of this settlement, which had been captured during the war, by surrendering it to the United States on the Gth day of October, 1818, in obedience to tiie treaty of Ghent. If the discovery of the mouth of a river, followed up within a reasonable time by the first exploration, both of its main channel 28 Oregon : Statement of the Claim and its branches, and appropriated by the first settlements on its banks, do not constitute a title to the territory drained by its waters in the nation performing these acts, then the principles consecrated by the practice of civilized nations ever since the dis- covery of the New World must have lost their force. These principles were necessary to preserve the peace of the world. Had they not been enforced in practice, clashing claims to newly-disco- vered territory, and perpetual strife among the nations, would have been the inevitable result. The title of the United States to the entire region drained by the Columbia river and its branches, was perfect and complete be- fore the date of the treaties of joint occupation of October, 1818, and August, 1827 ; and under the express provisions of those treaties, this iitl'v while they endure, can never be impaired by any act of the British Government. In the strong language of the treaty of 1827, " nothing contained in this convention, or in the third article of the convention of 1818, hereby continued in force, shall be construed to impair, or in any manner affect, tlie claims which either of the contracting parties may have to any part of the country westward of the Stony or Rocky Moiuitains." Had not the convention contained this plain provision, which has prevented the respective parties from looking with jealousy on the occupa- tion of portions of the territory by the citizens and subjects of each other, its chief object — which was to preserve peace and prevent collisions in those distant regions — would have been entirely de- feated. It is then manifest that neither the grant of this territory for a term of years, made by Great Britain to the Hudson Bay Com- pany in December, 1821, nor the extension of this grant in 1838, nor the settlements, trading posts, and forts, which have been esta- bhshed by that company under it, can, in the slightest degree, strengthen the British, or impair the American title to any portion of the Oregon territory. The British claim .is neither better nor worse than it was on the 29th October, 1818, the date of the first convention. The title of the United States to the valley of the Columbia is older than the Florida treaty of February, 1819, under vviiich the United Slates acquired all the rights of Spain to the north-west |1 of the United States. 29 coast of America, oncl exists incloponclently of its provisions. FiVon supposing, then, that tho British construction of tlie Nootka Sound ipk's I convention were correct, it couhl not apjily to this portion of the territory in dispute. A convention between Great Britain and Spain, originating from a dispute concerning a petty trading esta- blishment at Nootka Sound, could not abridj^e the riohts of other nations. Both in public and private law, an agreement between two parties can never bind a third, without his consent, express or implied. The extraordinary proposition will sca"cely be again urged, that our acquisition of the rights of Spain under the Florida treaty can in any manner weaken or impair our pre-existing title. It may often become expedient for nations, as it is for individuals, to purchase an outstanding title merely for the sake of peace ; and it has never heretofore been imagined that the acquisition of such a new title rendered the old one less valid. Under this principle, a party having two titles u ould be confined to his worst, and forfeit his best. Our acquisition of the rights of Spain, then, under the £ Florida treaty, while it cannot affect the prior title of the United States to the valley of the Columbia, has rendered it more clear and unquestionable before the world. We have a perfect right to claim under both these titles ; and the Spanish title alone, even if it were necessary to confine ourselves to it, would, in the opinion of the President, be good as against Great Britain, not merely to the valley of the Columbia, but the whole territory of Oregon. Our own American title, to the extent of the valley of the Columbia, resting as it does on discovery, exploration, and posses- sion — a possession acknowledged by a most solemn act of the British government itself — is sufficient assurance against all man- kind ; while our superadded title derived from Spain extends our exclusive right over the whole territory in dispute as against Great Britain. Such being the opinion of the President in regard to the title of the United States, he would not have consented to yield any portion of the Oregon territory, had he not found himself embarrassed, if not committed, by the acts of his predecessors. They had uni- formly proceeded ujjon the principle of compromise in all their negotiations. Indeed, the fir'^t question presented to him, after 30 Orrf/on : Statement of the CIai)n entering upon tlio duties of his offico, was, whether lie should abruptly terminate the negotiation which liad binni commenced and conducted between Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Pakenham on the prin- ciple avowed in the i :'st protocol, not of contending for the whole territory in dispute, but of treating of the respective claims of the parties, " with the view to establish a permanent boundary between the two countries westward of the Rocky Mountains." In view of these facts, the President has determined to pursue the present negotiation to its conclusion upon the principle of com- promise in which it commenced, and to make one more effort to adjust tliis long-pending controversy. In this determination he trusts that the British Government will recognise his sincere and anxious desire to cultivate the most friendly relations between the two countries, and to manifest to the world that he is actuated by a spirit of moderation. He has, therefore, instructed the under- signed again to propose to the Goverment of Great Britain that the Oregon territory shall be divided between the two countries by the 49th parallel of north latitude from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean; offering, at the same time, to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on Vancouver's Island south of this parallel, which the British Government may desire. He trusts that Great Britain may receive this proposition in the friendly spirit by which it was dictated, and that it may prove the stable foundation of lasting peace and harmony between the two countries. The line proposed will carry out the principle of con- tinuity equally for both parties, by extending the limits both of ancient Louisiana and Canada to the Pacific along the same parallel of latitude which divides them east of the Rocky Moun- tains ; and it will secure to each a sufficient number of commo- dious harbours on the north-west coast of America. The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to Mr. Pakenham the assurance of his distinguished consideration. James Buchanan. The Ri.i^^u<-'l wilJ loJJ'yw, -1. jj by stfp, t.ljfj ar^urnont of the IJjjijfeij i*l' iiijy<;i< /jii.M'y ill !:iij,jjoi» oi tin*'' j/,'opo-i'ions. 'i |j.; iiijii^li \*Wii\^>j(i iil( il \ti l*y ilnr Ji/ili^h ^iov<;rnrri(;nt, as tli<.' American J'l»Jii)ioleiiliiiry :'.«'! jii-. \i, hiij>j)Os*j, as ili(;ir ' main reliance" in the jjresenl !ioii ;" hul lo hh(nv that, hy th(; Florida Treaty of IHI'jjh*' IJiiiicfl Stales ae(jiiirc(l no right to exclusive dominion ov»'r any )<.hI oI iIm- ( >r<'gon l<;rjitory. '\\n: iihil»'i>J}.MitMl jiad hcjicvcd that ever since 182G the Nootka rohvniliun has h«*< n rtgardcd hy the IJritish Government as their ni.iiii, il iiiii ih.ir only rtiiance. Tlic very njiture and peculiarity ol ihi'ir t l.niii idi iiiilird il with the construclion vvliicli they have Mii|itK^t(l ii|iuii iliis roMvcnlion, and necessarily excludes every itihi-i h.isis ol lillr. W'hal 1ml lo accord with this construction rould liavi^ canned Messrs. I luskisson and Addiiifjton, the British i 'uimiiisraoniM'., in MixM-ifying liieir title, on the IGth of December, |M'J('>, lo tltihut' •ihal (iri'al Britain claims no exclusive sove- iiMj^nl\ n\«r any |tiirlii)ii of ihat territory. Her present claim, not in r»"iptnl l(» any part, hut to the whole, is limited to a right »>f joint oi-i'iipancy in ri>iumon with other states, leaving the right ol »\rlu-^i\«' di>minit)n in abeyance. " And airain : '' Bv that con- viiihou ^ot' Nootka) it was ag-reed that all parts of the north- >vt'-iitin riMNi <>f Anii'rica not altoi^ether occupied at that time by t'llhci of ihe fontrariin^ parties should thoucoforward be equally o|«t-u lo \\\.K' •.iibjeels of boili. for all purposes of commerce and si'itleujiMU ilu' ^overeiiTutv renuiiuiuo: in abevance." But on this r^ulni'ii \Ne aiv not let"! to lueiv inferences, however clear. The iMui-ih i'ouauKsionei-s, i[» their statement from which the under- signoil has just ipioied, luue virtually abaudotied any other title which (JivMt iMiiam may have previously asserted to the territory ui v!i-vpu(e, and expressly declare "' 'hat whatever that title may ba\c bv'vn> howe\er, either on the part o( Great Britain or on the p)l Spain, prior lo the convention ot' 17^0, it was thenceforward no loHoor u» be u\u\\l in \aiii;e narratives of discoveries, several of them aduuiied u» be apoerypiial, but in the text and stipulations of that e*.nuonlK>u Uscli.' Auil a^^dui, ni sumuung up their whole case, they say : — " .Vdmitling 'hat the rnilcd States have actpured all the % ■; wh of the United States 33 riglits which Spain possessed up to the tronly of Florida, oillior in virtue of discovery, or, as is pretended, in ri<;ht of Louisian;i, Great Britain maintains that tlie nature and oxtonl of these rights, as well as the rights of Great Britain, are ilxed and defined by the convention of Nootka," &c. The undersigned, after a careful examination, can discover nothing in the note of the present British Plenipotentiary to Mr. Calhoun, of the Titli of September Inst, to impair the force of these declarations and admissions of his predecessors. On the contrary, its general tone is in perfect accordance with them. Whatever may be the consequences, then, whether for good or for evil — whether to strengthen or to destroy the British claim — it is now too late for the British Government to vary their position. If the Nootka convention confers upon them no such rights as they claim, they cannot at this late hour go behind its provisions, and set up claims which in 1826 they admitted had been merged " in the text and stipulations of that convention itsoF." The undersigned regrets, that the British Plenipotentiary has }iot noticed his exposition of the true construction of the Nootka convention. He had endeavoured, and he believes successfully, to prove that this treaty was transient in its very nature; that it conferred upon Great Britain no right but that of merely trading with the Indians whilst the country should remain unsettled, and making the necessary establishments for this purpose ; and that it did not interfere with the ultimate sovereignty of Spain over the territory. The British Plenipotentiary has not attempted to resist these conclusions. If they be fair and legitimate, then it would not avail Great Britain even if she should prove the Nootka convention to be still in force. On the contrary, this convention, if the construction placed upon it by the undersigned be correct, contains a clear virtual admission, on the part of Great Britain, that Spain held the eventual right of sovereignty over the M'hole disputed territory ; and consequently that it now belongs to the United States. The value of this admission, made in 1700, is the same, whether or not the convention has continued to exist until the present day. But he is willing to leave this point on tlu! uncon- troverted argument contained in his former statement. 34 Orcfjon : Statement of the Claim But is the Nootka Sound convention still in force ? The British Plenipotentiary does not contest the clear general principle of public law, " that war terminates all subsisting treaties between the belligerent Powers." He contends, however, in the first place, that this convention is partly commercial ; and that, so far as it partakes of this character, it was revived by the treaty concluded at Madrid on the 28tli of August, 1814, which declares ** that all the treaties of commerce which subsisted between the two parties (Great Britain and Spain) in 1796 were thereby ratified and confirmed ;" and, '2nd, "that in other respects it must be considered as an acknowledgment of subsisting rights — an adii.. '-^n of certain principles of international law," not to be revoked by war. In regard to the first proposition, the undersigned is satisfied to leave the question to rest upon his former argument, as the British Plenipotentiary has contented himself with merely asserting the fact, that the commercial portion of the Nootka Sound convention was revived !jy the treaty of 1814, without even specifying wliat he considers to be that portion of that convention. If the under- signed had desired to strengthen his former position, lie might have repeated with great effect the argument contained in the note of Lord Aberdeen to the Duke of Sotomayor, dated 30th June, 1845, in which his Lordship clearly established that all the treaties of commerce subsisting between Great Britain and Spain previous to 179G were confined to the trade with Spain alone, and did not embrace her colonies and remote possessions. The second proposition of the British Plenipotentiary deserves greater attention. Does the Nootka Sound convention belong to that class of treaties containing '' an acknowledgment of subsisting rights — an admission of certain principles of interna- tional law" not to be abrogated by war? Had Spain by this convention acknowledged the right of all nations to make dis- coveries, plant settlements, and establish colonies on the north- west coast of America, bringing with them their sovereign juris- diction, there would have been much force in the argument. But such an admission never was made, and never was intended to be made, by Spain. The Nootka convention is arbitrary and artificial in the highest degree, and is anything rather than the nit of isni Bi to CO pr of t/tp. United States. 35 The K'iple IwecMi first so far t roaty clares len the lereby must s — an to be sfiecl to British ntj the ^rcntion Of u'liat under- 5 miffht o he note I June, treaties irevious [lid not leserves belong lent of interna- by this ike dis- j north- ;n juris- it. But ided to ary and lian the i more acknowledorment of simple and elomcnfnry principles conse- crated by the law of nations. In all its provisions it is expressly confined to Great Britain and Spnin, and ncknowlodaos no right whatever in any tiiird power to interfere with the north-west coast of America. Neither in its terms, nor in its essence, does it con- tain any acknowledgment of previously subsisting territorial ri^^hts in Great Britain, or any other nation. It is strictly confined to fuvure engagements; and these are of a most peculiar character- Even under the construction of its provisions maintained by Groat Britain, her claim does not extend to plant colonies; — which she would have had a right to do under the law of nations, had the country been unappropriated ; but it is limited to a mere right of joint occupancy, not in respect to any part, but to the wliole, the sovereignty remaining in abeyance. And to what kind of occu- pancy? Not separate and distinct colonies, but scattered settle- ments, intermingled with each other, over the whole surface of the territory, for the single purpose of trading with the Indians, to all of which the subjects of each power should have free access, the right of exclusive dominion remaining suspended. Surolv, it cannot be successfully contended that such a treaty is " an ad- mission of certain principles of international law," so sacred and so perpetual in their nature as not to be annidled by war. On the contrary, from the character of its provisions, it cannot be sup- posed for a single moment that it was intended for any purpose but that of a mere temporary arrangement between Great Britain and Spain. The law of nations recognizes no such principles in regard to imappropriated territory as those embraced in this treaty ; and the British Plenipotentiary must fail in the attempt to prove that it contains "' an admission of certain principles of international law," which will survive the shock of war But the British Plenipotentiary contends that from the silence of Spain during the negotiations of 1818 between Groat Brilaiji and the United States respecting the Oregon territory, as well as " from her silence with respect to the continued occupation by the British of their settlements in the Columbia territory subsequently to the convention of 1814," it may iairly "be inferred tliat Spain considered the stipulations of the Nootka convention, and the principles therein laid down, to be still in force." d2 30 Orfrjon : Statcrncnf of the Claim Tlif iindprsi^nod cannot inm^nn " a caso wh^ro the oblirrations of a treaty, oiwm cxtin^uishod by war, ran bo rovived willinut p positive aj^rfcrrifnt to tliis «;flrf;t between the partio"?. EvtMi if both partic"-', arf<;r tin; conclusion of peace, shrjjd penorm jjositivc and iincHjiiivocal acts in accordance with its provision-;, these must be construed as merely voluntary, to be discontinued by either at pleasure. I5ut in tho present case it is not even p:vi ended that S[)ain performed any act in accordanc; with the convention of N(»(>lka. Sound after her treaty with Great Britain of 1814. Her mere silence is relied upon to revive that convention. 'V\u'. und(;rsijyned asserts confuK.'nllj', that ncitlier by public nor private law will the mere silence of one party, whilst another if, (Microa(;hinh title under the Florida treaty. But Great Britain is a third party — an (Jiitire stranger to both these titles — and has no right whatever to marshal the one iiiiainst the other. i ivay, n;at ring tliut I'ln- true it le ; iuns on to it, in e lior -west ] her the hiinis , ',:th t was 3, but of the United States. 39 Uy what authoiify can Groat Britain interpoae in this niannor? Was it ever ii.ia^nnecl in any court of justice tiiat tiie acquisitio?i of a new title destroyed the old one ; and, vice vci'sd, that the pur- chase of the old til le destroyed the new one i* In a (|uestion of mere private ri^lit it would bu considered absurd if a stran;;er to both titles should say to the party who made a settlement, " Vou shall not avail yourself of your possession, because this was taken in violation of another outstanding title ; and, althou»;h I must admit that you have also acquirid this outstanding title, yet even this shall avail you nothing, because, having taken possession pre- viously to your purchase, you thereby evinced that you did not regard such title as valid." And yet such is the mode by which the British Plenipotentiary has attempted to destroy both the American and Spanish titles. On the contrary, in the case men- tioned, the j)ossession and the outstanding title being united in the same imlividual, these conjoined would be as perfectj as if both had been vested in him from the beffiiiniiifj. The undersigned, whilst strongly asserting both these titles, and believing each of them separately to be good as against Great, Britain, has studiously avoided instituting any comparison between them. But admitting, for the sake of argument merely, that the discovery by Captain Gray of the mouth of the Columbia, its ex\iloration by Lewis and Clarke, and the settlement ui)on its banks at Astor'a, were encroachments on Spain, she, and she alone, had a right to complain. Great Britain was a third party, and, as such, had no right to interfere in the question between Spain 'and the United States. But Spain, instead of complaining of these acts as encroachments, on the 22nd of February, 181 U, by the Florida treaty, transferred the whole title to the United States. From that moment all possible conflict between the two titles was ended, both being united in the same party. Two titles which might have conflicted, therefore, were thus blended together. The title now vested in the United States is just as strong as though every act of discovery, exploration, and settlement on the part of both Powers had been performed by Spain alone, before she had transferred all her rights to the United States. The two Powers are one in this respect ; the two titles are one ; and, as the undersigned will show hereafter, they serve to confirm and 40 Orego'i : Statement of the Claim strengthen each other. If Great Britain, instead of the United States, had acquired the title of Spain, she might have contended tliat those acts of the United States were encroachments ; but, standing in the attitude of a stranger to both titles, she has no right to interfere in the matter. The undersigned deems it unnecessary to pursue this branch of the subject furthei than to state that the United States, before they had acquired the title of Spain, always treated that title with respect. In the negotiation of 1818 the American Plenipo- tentiaries " did not assert that the United States had a perfect right to that country, but insisted that their claim was at least good against Great Britain ;" and tiie convention of October 20, 1818, unlike that of Nootka Sound, reserved the claims of any other power or state to any part of the said country. This reser- vation could have been intended for Spain alone. But ever since the United States acquired tlie Spanish title, they have always as- serted and maintained their rights in the strongest terms up to the Russian line, even whilst offering, ibr the sake of harmony and peace, to divide the territory in dispute by the 4Uth parallel of latitude. The British Plenipotentiary, then, has entirely failed to sustain his position, that the United States can found no claim on disco- very, exploration, and settlement, without admitting the principles of the Nootka Convention. That convention died on tliu com- mencement of the war between Spain and England in 17^6, and has never since been revived. The British Plenipotentiary next '' endeavours to prove that even if the Nootka Sound convention had never existed, the position of Great Britain, in regard to her claim, whether to the whole, or to any particular portion of the Oregon territory, is at least as good is that of the United States." In order to establish this position, he must show that the British claim is equal in validity to the titles both of Spain and the United States. These can never now be separated. They are one and the same. Different and diverging as they may have been before the Florida treaty, they are now blended togetiier and identified. The sepa- rate discov'jries, explorations, and settlements of the two powers previous to that date must now be considered as if they had all been made by the United Stales alone. Under this palpable of the United States. 41 view of the subject, the undersigned was surprised to find that in tlie comparison and contrast instituted by the British Pleni])o- tentiary between the claim of Great Britain and that of the United States, lie had entirely omitted to refer to the di?-coveries, explorations, and settlements made by Spain. The undersitJ^ned will endeavour to supply the omission. But, before he proceeds to the main argument on this point, ho feels himself constrained to express his surprise that the British Plenipotentiary should again have invoked, in support of the British title, the inconsistency between the Spanish and American branches of the title of the United States. The undersio-ned can- not forbear to congratulate himself upon the fact, that a gentle- man of Mr. Pakenham's acknowledged ability has been reduced to the necessity of relying chiefly upon such a support for sustain- ing the British pretensions. Stated in brief, the argument is this : — The American title is not good against Great Britain, because inconsistent with that of Spain ; and the Spanish title is not good against Great Britain, because inconsistent with that of the United States. The undersigned had expected something far different from such an argument in a circle. He had an- ticipated that the British Plenipotentiary would have attempted to prove that Spain had no right to the north-western coast of America ; that it was vacant and una])propriated ; and hence, under the law of nations, was open to discovery, exploration, and settlement by all nations. But no such thing. On this vital point of his case he rests his arguments solely on the declaration made by the undersigned, that the title of the United' States to the valley of the Columbia was jieifect and complete belbre the treaties of joint occupation of October, 1818, and August, 1827, and before the date of the Florida treaty in 1819. But tlie British Plenipotentiary ought to re- collect, that this title was asserted to be complete, not against Spain, but against Great Britain; that the argiunent was con- ducted not against a Spanish, but a British Plenipotentiary ; and that the United Slates, and not Great Britain, represent the Spanish title; and, further, that the statement from which he extracts these declarations was almost exclusively devoted to prove, in the language quoted by the British Plenipotentiary 42 Oregon: Statement of the Claim himself, that " Spain had a good title, as against Great Britain, to the wliole of the Oregon territory." The undersigned has never, as he before observed, instituted any comparison between the American and the Spanish titles. Holding both — having a perfect riglit to rely upon both, whether jointly or separately, — he has strongly asserted each of them in its turn, fully persuaded that either the one or the other is good against Great Britain, and that no luiman ingenuity can make the Spanish title, now vested in the United States, worse than it would have been, had it remained in the hands of Spain. Briefly to illustrate and enforce this title shall be the remaining task of the undersigned. And, in the first place, he cannot but commend the frankness and candonr of the British Plenipotentiary in departing from the course of his predecessors, and rejecting all discoveries previous to those of Captain Cook, in the year 1778, as foundations of the British title. Commencing with discovery at a period so late, the Spanish title, on the score of antiquity, presents a strong con- trast to that of Great Britain. The undersigned had stated, as an historical and " striking fact, which must have an important bearing against the claim of Great Britain, that this convention (the Nootka), which was dictated by her to Spain, contains no provi- sion impairing the ultimate sovereignty which that power had as- serted for nearly three centuries over the whole western side of North America, as far north as the 61st degree of latitude, and which had never been seriously questioned by any Euroi)ean nation. This had been maintained by Spain with the most vigi- lant jealousy ever since the discovery of the American continent, and had been acquiesced in by all European Governments. It had been admitted even beyond the latitude of 54*^ 10' north, by Russia, th(>n the only power having claims which conld come into collision with Spain ; and that, too, under a sovereign pecu- liarly tenacious of the territorial rights of her empire.'' These historical facts had not been, as they could not be, controverted by the British Plenipotentiary, although they were bronght luider his particnlar observation, and were even quoted by him with ap- probation, fur the pur})ose of showing the inconsistency of the several titles held by the United States. In the language of Count di fr( sn F d( tl It tlJ of the United States. 43 am, lias eeii Tornan de Nunez, the Spanish Ambassador at Paris, to M. do Montmorin, the Secretary of the Foreign Department of France, under date of June 16th, 1700:— "By the treaties, I'.emarcations, takings of possession, and the most decided acts of sovereignty exercised by the Spaniards in those stations from the reign of Charles II., and authorized by that monarch in 1G92, the original vouchers for which shall be brought forward in the course of the negotiation, all the coast to the north of Western America, o i the; sid ^ of the South Sea, as far as beyond what is called Prince Wil- liam's Sound, which is in the 61st degree, is acknowledged to be- long exclusively to Spain." Compared with this ancient claim of Spain, acquiesced in by all European nations for centuries, the claim of Great Britain, founded on discoveries commenced at so late a period as the year 1778, must make an unfavourable first impression. Spain considered the north-west coast of America as exclusively her own. She did not send out expeditions to explore that coast for the purpose of rendering her title more valid. When it suited her own convenience, or promoted her own interest, slie fitted out such expeditions of discovery to ascertain the character and extent of her own territory, and yet her discoveries along that coast arc far earlier than those of the British. That Juan de Fuca, a Greek, in the service of Spain, in 1592, discovered and sailed throujjh the strait now bearinjx his name, from its southern to its northern extremity, and thence returned by the same passage, no longer admits of reasonable doubt. An account of thib "oyage was published in London in 162.3, in a work called \\\Q Pilgrims, by Samuel Purchas. This account was received from the lips of Fuca himself at Venice, in April, 1 596, by Michael Lock, a highly respectable English mercliant. During a long period this voyage was deemed fabulous because subsequent navigators had in vain attempted to find these straits. Finally, after they had been found, it was discovered that the descriptions of De Fuca corresponded so accurately witii their geography and the facts presented by nature upon the ground, that it was no longer possible to consider his narration as fabulous. It is true that the opening of the straits from the south lii's between the 4Sth and 49th parallels of latitude, and not between the 17th 44 Orcfjon: Statement of the Claim and 48th parallelsj as he had supposed ; but tliis mistake may be easily explained by the inaccuracy so common throughout the IGtli century in ascertaining the latitude of places in newly discovered countries. It is also true that De Fuca, after passing through these straits, supposed he had reached the Atlantic, and had discovered the passage so long and so anxiously sought after between the two oceans ; but from the total ignorance and misai)prehension which had prevailed at that early day of the goograpliy of this portion of North America, it was natural for him to believe that he had made this important discovery. Justice has at length been done to his memory, and these straits which he discovered will, in all future time, bear his name. Thus, the merit of the discovery of the Straits of Fuca belongs to Spain ; and this nearly two centuries before they had been entered by Captain Berkeley, under the Austrian flag. It is unnecessary to detail tlie discoveries of the Spaniards, as they regularly advanced to the north from their settlements on the western coasts of North America, until we reach the voyage of Captain Juan Perez in 1774. That navigator was commissioned by the Viceroy of Mexico to proceed in the corvette Santiago to the 60tli degree of north latitude, and from that point to examine the coast down to Mexico. He sailed from San Bias on the 25th of January, 1774. In the performance of this commission, he landed first on the north-west coast of Queen Charlotte's Island, near the 54th degree of north latitude, and thence proceeded south along the shore of that island, and of the great islands of Quadra and V^ancouver, and then along the coast of the continent until he reached Monterey. He went on shore and held intercourse with the natives at several places, and especially at the entrance of a bay in latitude 49^ degrees, which he called Port San Lorenzo, the same now known by the name of Nootka Sound. In addition to the journals of this voyage, which render the fact incontestable, we have the high authority of Baron Humboldt in its favour. I'hat distinguished traveller, who liad access to the manuscript documents in the city of Mexico, states that " Perez, and his pilot Estevan Martinez, left the port of San Bias on the 24th of Janu- ary, 1774. On the 0th of August they anchored (the first of all of the United States. 45 y ^^ 16th ered 'aits, the two 'hich rtioii held European navigators) in Nootka Road, which ihoy called the Port of San Lorenzo, and which the illustrious Cook, four years after- wards, called King George's Sound." In the next year (1775) the Viceroy of Mexico ajrain fitted out the Santiago, under the command of Bruno Ileceta, with Perez, her former commander, as ensign, and also a schooner, called the Senora, commanded by Juan Francisco do la Bodegay Quadra. These vessels were commissioned to examine the nordi-western coast of America as far as the G5th degree of latitude, and sailed in company from San Bias on the 15th of March, 1775. It is unnecessary to enumerate the diiferent places on the coast examined by these navigators either in company or separately. Suffice it to say, that they landed at many places on the coast from the 41st to the 57tli degree of latitude, on all of which occa- sions they took possession of the country in the name of their sovereign, according to a prescribed regulation ; celebrating mass, reading declarations asserting the right of Spain to i he territory, and erecting crosses with inscriptions to commemorate the event. Some of these crosses were afterwards found standing by British navigators. In reference to these voyages, Baron Humboldt says: — "In the following year (1775, after that of Perez), a second expedition set out from San Bias, under the command of Heceta, Ayala, and Quadra. Heceta discovered the mouth of the Rio Columbia, called the Entrada de Heceta, the peak of San Jacinto (Mount Edgecomb), near Norfolk Bay, and the fine port of Bucareli. I possessed two very curious small maps, engraved in 1788, in the city of Mexico, which gave the bearings of the coast from the 27tli to the 58th degree of latitude, as they were discovered hi tho expedition of Quadra." In the face of these incontestable facts, the British Plenipo- tentiary says : — " That Captain Cook must also be considered the discoverer of Nootka Sound, in consequence of the want of authenticity in the alleged previous discovery of that port by Perez. '*' And yet Cook did not even sail from England until the 12th of July, 1776, nearly two years after Perez had made this discovery. The chief object of Cook's voyage was the discovery of a north-west passage ; and he never landed at any point of the continent south of Nootka Sound. It is true, that in coasting 40 Oregon : Statement of the Claim along tlie continent before lie reached this place, he had observed Cape Flattery ; but he was entirely ignorant that this was the southern entrance of the Straits of Fuca. In his journal he admits that he had heard some account of the Spanish voyages of 1774 and 1775, before he left England ; and it is beyond question that, before his departure, accounts of the voyage of Quadra had been published hz\]\ in Madrid and London. From Nootka Sound, Cook did not again see land until he reached the 57th doo[ree of north latitude. In 1787, it is alleged hv tlie British Pleiiip^ientiary, that Captain Berkeley, a British subject, discovered the Straits of Fuca ; but these straits had been discovered by Juan de Fiica nearly two centuries before. Besides, if there had been any merit in this discovery of Captain Berkeley, it would have btjlongcd to Austria, in whose service he was, and under whose colours he sailed, and cannot be appropriated by Great Britain. And here it is worthy of remark, that these discoveries of Cook and Berkeley, in 1778 and 1787, are all those on which the British Plenipotentiary relies^ previous to the date of the Nootka Sound convention, in October, 1790, to defeat the anciont Spanish title to the north-west coast of America. The undersigned will now take a position which cannot, in his opinion, be successfully assailed ; and this is, that no discovery, exploration, or settlement made by Great Britain on the north-west coast of America, after the date of the Nootka Sound convention, and before it was terminated by the war of 179G, can be invoked by that power in favour of her own title, or against the title ofSpain. Even according to the British construction of that convention, the sovereignty over the territory was to remain in abeyance during its continuance, as well in regard to Great Britain as to Spain. It would, theieibre, have been an open violation of faith on the part of Great Britain, after having secured the privileges conferred upon her by the con\ention, to turn round against her partner and performaiiy acts calculated to divt st Spain of her ultimate sovereignty over any portion of the country. The palpable meaning of the convention was, that diu'iiig its continuance the rights of the re- spective parties, whatever they might have been, should remain just as they had existed at its commencement. \ tr nj sti til hi ol of the United States. 47 [>rve(l s the lI he es of lestion L had oolka i 57th , that aits of i Fiica y merit i2cd to ours he of Cook e British a Sound nish title ot, in his liscovcry, orth-west ►nvention, :> invoked of Spain, ntion, the during its pain. It n the part conferred artner and overeignty insr of the of the re- •emainjust The Government of Great Britain is not justly chargeable with any such breach of faith. Captain Vancouver acted without in- structions iu atteuipting to take possession of the whole north- wrstfTii coast of America in the name of his sovereign. This officer, sent out from England to execute the convention, did not carry with him any authority to violate it in this outrageous manner. Without this treaty he would have been a mere intruder ; under I it, Great Britain had a right to make discoveries and surveys, not thereby to acquire title, but merely to enable her subjects to select spots the most advantageous, to use the lang\iage of the convention, " for the purpose of ca.rying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or of making settlements there." If this construction of the Nootka Sound convention he correct — and the undersigned does not see how it can be questioned — then Vancouver's passage through the Straits of Fuca, in 1792, and Alexander Mackenzie's journey across the continent in 1793, can never be transformed into elements of title in favour of Great Britain. But even if the undersigned could be mistaken in these positions, it would be easy to prove that Captain John Kendrick, in the American sloop Washington, passed through the Straits of Fuca, in 1789; three years before Captain Vancouver performed the same voyage. The very instructions to the latter, before he left England in January, 1791, refers to this fact, which had been com- municated to the British Government by Lieutenant Meares, who has rendered his name so notorious by its connexion with the transactions preceding the Nootka Sound convention. It is, moreover, well known that the whole southern division of the straits had been explored by the Spanish navigators Elisa and Quimper — the first in 1790, and the latter in 1791. After what has been said, it will be perceived how little reason the British Plenipotentiary has for stating that his Government has, " as far as relates to Vancouver's island, as complete a case of discovery, exploration, and settlement, as can well he presented, ' Iff to Great Britain, in any arrangement that may be made givinc with regard to the territory in dispute, the strongest possible claim to the exclusive posse: jsion of that island. 48 Oregon : Statement of the Claim The discovery thus relied upon is that of Nootka Sound, by Cook, in 177'S, ^vhen it has been demonstrated that tliis port was first discovered by Perez, in 1774. The exploration is that by Vancouver, in passing through the Straits of Fuca, in J 702, and examining the coasts of the territory in dispute, when De Fuca liimself had passed through these straits in 1592, and Kendrick again in 1789; and a complete examination of the western coast had been made in 1774 and 1775, botli by Perez and Quadra. As to possession, if Mcares was ever actually restored to his pos- sessions at Nootka Sound, whatever those may have been, the undersigned has never seen any evidence of the fact. It is not to be found in the journal of Vancouver, although t^iis olllcer was sent from England for the avowed puiy'^e of itnessing such a restoration. The undersigned knows not vis •o days, tradinw with the Indians. On the 11th May, 17')2, Captain Gray entered the mouth of the Columbia, and conn)leted the discovery of that arcat river This river had been long sought in vain by former navigators. .Both Meares and Vancouver, after examination, had denied its existence. Thus is the world indebtrd to the enterprise, perse- verance, and intelligence, of an American captain ofatradino- vessel, for their first knowledge of this the greatest river on the Western coast of America — a river, whose head-springs flow from the gorges of the Rocky Mountains, and whose branches ex- tend from the 42nd to the 53rd parallels of latitude. This was the last and most important discovery on the coast, and has per- petuated the name of Robert Gray. In all future time, this great river will bear the name of his vessel. It is true, that Bruno Heceta, in the year 1775, had been oppo- site the bay of the Columbia; and the curn^nls nnd eddies of the waters, caused liim, as he remarks, to believe that this was " the mouth of some great river, or of some passage to another sea ;"' and his opinion seems decidedly to have been, that this was the opening of the strait, discovered by Juan de Fuca, in 1592. To use his own language : " Notwithstanding the great difference between the position of this bay and the passage mentioned by De Fuca, I have little difficulty in conceiving that they may be the same, having observed equal or greater differences in the latitudes of other capes and ports on this coast, as I shall show at its proper time ; and in all cases, the latitudes thus assigned are higher than the real ones." Heceta, from his own declaration, had never entered the Columbia, and he was in doubt whether the opening was the mouth of a river or an arm of the sea ; and subsequent examina- tions of the coast by other navigators, had rendered the opinion universal that no such river existed, when Gray first bore the American flag across its bar, sailed up its channel for 25 miles, and remained in the river nine days, trading with the Indians. The British Plenipotentiary attempts to depreciate the value to the United States of Gray's discovery, because his ship (the 50 Orcf/on : Sfatctncnt of the Chiini Columbia) was a tradincr, nnd not a nntional vessel. As lie fur- nishes no renson for tliis clisliiidion, the luulersij^iied will conflno himself to the remark, that a mtM'chant vessel bt*ars the ih\(r of her country at her mast-head, and continues under its juri>diction and protection, in the same manner us though s!ie had been commis- siom^d for the express purpose of making discoveries. Besides, bi-yond all doubt, this discovery was made by Gray ; iind to what nalio.i coidd the benefit of it belong, uidess it be to the United States? Certamly not to Great Britain. And if to Spain, the United States are now her representative. Nor does the undersigned ])erceive in what manner the value of this great discovery can be lessened by the fact that it was first published to the world through the journal of Captain Vancouver, a Britit,li authority. On the contrary, its authenticity being thus acknowledged by the party having an adve'.se interest, is more firmly established than if it had been first published in the United States. From a careful examination and review of the subject, the undersigned ventures the assertion, that to Spain and the United States belong all the merit of the discovery of the north-west const of America south of the Russian line ; not a spot of which, unless it may have been the shores of some of the intei-ior bays and inlets, after the entrance to them had been known, was ever beheld by British subjects until after it had been seen or touched by a Spaniard or an American. Spain ])roceeded in this work of discovery, not as a means of acquiring title, but for the purpose of examining and surveying territory to which she believed she had an incontestable right. This title had been sanctioned for centuries by the .icknowledgment or acquiescence of all the Euro- pean Powers. The United States alone could have disputed this title, and that only to the extent of the region watered by the Columbia. Tiie Spanish and American titles, now united by the Florida Treaty, cannot be justly resisted by Great Britain. Con- sidered together, they constitute a perfect title to the whole ter- ritory in dispute, ever since the llth May, 1792, when Captain Gray passed the bar at the moutli of the Columbia, which he had observed in August, \7SS. Tiie undersigned will now proceed to show that this title of the fur- 1)1' lii'P li and liiiiis- |si(les, wlial ^lik'd ^1, thf value s first Oliver, nf thus more Jnited of the C ^n itciJ St at on . 5 \ Unifed Stales, at least to tlie iiossoHsion of tiu' ti-nilory at tiio mouth of the ('ohind)ia. has bccMi acknoulodgeil hy the? most solemn and iiiuquivoeal acts of the IJriiisli Government. After the piiiclia-c of Louisiana from Kranee, the ( jovernmenl of the United States fitted out an expedition under Messrs. Lewis and Chirk; who, in 1805, first explored the Columbia from its source to its mouth, preparatory to the occupation of the territory bv the United States. In 1811, tlie settlement at Astoria was made i)y tlie Americans near iho mouth of the river, and several other nost posts were esta- blished in tlie interior aloiifT its banks. Tiiewarof 1812 bet w een Great Briti ii-eat liritain and tiie United States thus found the latter in peace- able possession of that region. Astoria was caj)tured by Great Britain during this war. The vreaty of peace concluded at Ghent in December, 1S14, provided tlu't " all territory, places, and pos- sessions whatsoever, taken by either i)arty from tlie other dnrino the war," &c., " shall be restoreil without delay." In obedience to the provisions of this treaty, Great Britain restored Astoria to the United Slates, and thus admitted, in the most solemn manner, not only that it had been an American territory or possession at the commencement of the war, but that it had been cajHured by Briti.sh arms during its continuance. It is now too late to gainsay or ex- plain away these facts. Both the treaty of Ghent, and the acts of the British Government under it, disprove the allegations of the British Plenipotentiary, that Astoria pas.sed " into Briti.sh hands by the voluntary act of the persons in charge of it," and " that it was restored to the United States in 1818 with certain well- authenticated reservations." In reply to the first of these allegations, it is true that the agents of the (American) Pacific h'ur Company, before the capture of Astoria, on the 16th of October, 1813, had transferred all that they could transfer — the private property of the company — to the (British) North-west Company ; but it will scarcely be contended that such an arrangement could impair the sovereign rights of the United States to the territory. Accordingly the American flag was still kept flying over the fort until the 1st of Deci-mber, 1813, when it was captured by His Majesty's sloop of war Racoon, and the British flaff was then substidited. 5-2 Orcf/on : Strtcmcut of the CUum That it was not rostoird totli(» IJnitod Stalos "witli corfain woll- autluMitir'atod rosorvations " i'ully Jipi't'ar.s iVotn the iict of rostora- tion itscir, Ixnirln;; diito Gtli ofOctolior, 1818. Tliis is as ahsoluto and unconditional as the IOntituted in the spirit and upon the prin- ciple of coniproniisi\ Its object, as avowed by the negotiators, was not to demand the whole territory in dispute for either coun- try ; b;i1, in the language of tht; first protocol, "to tnat of the rcspeelivc claims of the two countriis to the Oregon territory with of the United Stftfrs. 55 -and hsti- ition hject, tlio view to cstablisli a peimanont. bouiulary b^^tnocn lliom west- ward of the Uocky Mountains to tlio Pacific! Ocean,'' Placed in this position, and considering tliat Presidents Miinroo and Adams had on former occasions oflered to divide the territory in dispute by the 49th parallel of latitude, he felt it to be his duty not abru])tly to arrest the n(>gotialion, but so far to yield his own o})inion as once more to make a similar oiler. Not only respect for the conduct of his predecessors, but a sincere and anxious desire to promote peace and harmony between the two countries, influenced him to pursue this course. The Oregon question presents the only intervening cloud which inter- cepts the prospect of a long career of mutual friendship and bene- ficial commerce between the two nations, and this cloud he desired to remove. These arc the reasons which actuated the President to offer a proposition so liberal to Great Briiain. And how has this proposition been received by the British Plenipotentiary ? It has been rejected without even a reference to his own Government. Nay, more, the British Plenipotentiary, to use his own language, "trusts that the American Plenipotentiary will be prepared to offer some further proposal for the settlement of the Oregon question more consistent with fairness and equity^ and with the reasonable expectations of the British Govern- ment." Under such circumstances, the inidersigned is instructed bv the President to say that he owes it to his own country, and a just cippreciation of her title to the Oregon territory, to ^vithdraw the proposition to the British Governmcnit which had been made under his direction ; and it is liereby accordingly withdrawn. In taking this necessary step, the President still cherishes the hope that this long-pending controversy may yet be finally ad- justed in such a mann. r as not to di'-turb the peace* or interrupt the harmony now so happily subsisting between the two nations. The undersigned avails himself, &c., James Buchanan. T/if Ritjht lion. It. Fahcnliam, LONDON: I'rintcil hy W. Ci.oWES ami Sons, Sliitnlonl Stroot. APPENDIX. MR. P.VKENIIAM'S COUNTEll STATEMENTS IN LETTERS TO MR. CALHOUN AND MR. BUCHANAN. TlIR inter ricaii the }i the t by t tcnti Stat( tlien T ihe in t 'I \vl\i app ac'i foui his and ten ] pre wil Frt est aft an( in otl %va th( APPENDIX Mr. Pakenham to Mr. Calhoun, I VVasliiiigton, September 12, 1844. TiiR undersigned, Britiah Plenipotentiary, has studied with much interest and attention the rtatenient (niarkeii A.), presented by the Ame- rican Plenipotentiary, netting forth thr grounds on whieh he declines the proposal offered by the British Plenipoleutiary as u compromise of the ditii^'ulties of the Oregon cpiestion. Tiie arrangement contemplated by that propoi^id -vvoulu, in the estimation of the American Plenipo- tentiary, have the effect of restricting the poi^scstiions of" the United StatCii to limits far more circumscribed than their claims clearly entitle then^ t The cl.tims of the United States to the portion of territory drained by the Co-urabia river, are divided into those adduced by the United States in tliiir own proper right, and tiiose which they have derived from FnY\ce and Spain. e former, as against Great Britain, they ground on priority of dis- :-o^^:■.ry and priority of exploration and settlement. '1 he claim derived from France originates in the treaty of 1803, by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, with all its rights and uj)purtenanr;es, as AiUy and in the same manner as they had been acuuired by the French Republic; and the claim derived fnjni Spain is foundvd on'the treaty concluded with tiiut power in the year 1819, whereby his ('athoiic Majesty ceded to tiie Uiiitid States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories lying easet and north of a certain line terminating on the Pacific, in the 4r2nd degree of north latitude. Departing from the order in which these three separate claims are presented by the American Plenipotentiary, the British Plenipotentiary will first beg leave to observe, with regard to the claim derived from France, that lie has not been able to discover any evidence tending to establish the belief that Louisiana, as originally possessed by France, afterwards transferred to Si)ain, then retroceded by Spain to France, and ultimately ceded by the hitter Power to the United States, extended in a westerly direction "beyond the Rocky Mountains. Tliere is, on the other hand, strong reason to su])pose that, at the tune when Louisiana was ceded to the United States, its acknowledged western boundary was the Rockv Mountains. Such appears to have been the opinion of Pre- /y 2 •* App.mfllx : Mr. Pakcvham's sidcnt Joflcrson, under whose auspices the acquisition of Jjouisinna was accomplished. In a letter written by him in August, 1803, arc to be found the fol- lovvintr Words : — " The boun(biries ((;f IjOui?iana), which I deem not adniittini:^ cpics- tion, are tlie high hinds on tlie western side of the Mississippi, cnehjsini^ all its wjiters (the Missouri, of course), and terminating in tlie line drawn from the north-west point of the Luke of the Woods to tlie nearest source of the Mississi{)j)i, as lately settled between Great Britain and the L'nited States." In another and more formal docimient, dated in July, 1807 — that is to say, nearly a year after the return of Lewis and Clarke from their expedition to the Pacific, and fifteen years after Gray had entered the Cohimbia River — is recorded Mr. Jetlerson's opinion of the impolicy of giving ofVencc to Spain by any intimation that the claims of the United States extended to the Pacific ; and we have the authority of an American historian, distinguished f(;r the attention and research which he has bestowed on the whole subject of the Oregon Territory, for concluding that the western boundaries of Louisiana, as it was ceded by France to the United States, were those indicated by, nature — namely, the high lands separating the waters of the Mississippi from those falling into the Pacific. From the acquisition., then, of Louisiana, as it was received from France, it seems clear that the United States can deduce no claim to territory west of the ilocky Mountains. But, even if it were otherw-e, and if France had even ])osscsced or asserted a claim to territory west of the Rocky Mountains, as apjH^itaiuuig to the territory of liouisiana, that claim, whatever it mi-ht be, wi^s lun-essarily transferred to Spain when Ltniisiana w.u-= cedetl to that pwvver in 1 7<)'2, and of course be inc subject to tlie provisions of the tivaty between Spain and Great Britain of 1790, which efleccually abrogated the claim of Sj)ain to exclusive dominion over the unoccupied jiarts of the American continent. '•'o the observations of the Ainericnn Plenipotenti.uy respecting the cfiect of continu.ty in furni^hill^ a claiiv to tcrrit(U-y, the under- signed has not failed to pay due att"ntion ; but ho submits that what is said on this ho;»d may more propei ly be considered as ileinonstrating tin: greater degric of interest, which liio United States possess by reason of coii'iguity in ajcpiiring territory in that direction, than as affecting, in any way, the q ustion of right. The undersigned will endcavou. to show hereafter that, in the proposal put in on the part of Great Britain, the natural expectations of the United States, on the ground of contiguity, have not been disreaariUtl. Next comes to be examined the claim derived from Spain. It must, indeed, l)c aekno\\len of :ting, in , in the ectations not been 9, Spain isposc of latitude ; its which another Counter Statements. 5 Hy the treaty of 28th October, 1790, Spain acknowledged in Ctreat Britain certain rights with respect to those parts of the western coast of America not already occupied. This acknowledgement had reference especially to the territory which forms the subject of the jircsent negotiation. If Spain could not make good her own right to exclusive dominion over those regions, slill less could she confer such a right on another juiwer ; and hence (ireat Britain argues, that from nothing deduced from the treaty of 1819 can the United Sti'.te^i assert a valid claim to exclusive dominion over any part of the Oregon territory. There remains to be considered the claim advanced by the United States on the ground of prior discovery and prior exploration and settlement. In that part of the memorii.nduni of the American Plenipotentiary which speaks of the Spanish title, it is stated that the numth of the river, afterwards called the Colunihialliver, was first discovered by the Spanish navigator Ilcceta. The admission of this act woidd appear to be altogether irrcconcilaljle with a claim to priority of disoevery from anything accom- plished by CaptaiuGray. Toone, and to one only, of those commanders, can be conceded the merit of first discovery. If Ilcceta's claim is acknowledged, then Cajitain Gray is no longer the discoverer of the Uoliimbia River. If, on the other hand, preference is given to the achievement of Captain Gray, then lleccla's discovery ceases to be of any value. But i*. is argued that the United States now represent Ix-th titles — the title of Ileeeta and the title of Gray, — and therefore that under one or the other, it matters not which, enough can be shown to establish a case of prior discovery as against Great Britain. This may be true, as far as relates to the act of first seeing and lirsl entering the mouth of the Columbia River; but, if the Spanish claim to pri> v discovery is to prevail, wliatever rights may thereon be founded are necessarily restricted by the stipulations of the treaty of 1790, which forbid a claim to exclusive possession. If the act of Captain Gray, in passing the bar and actually entering the river, is to supersede the discovery of the entrance — which is all that is attributed to Ileeeta — then, the principle of progressive or gradual discovery being admitted as conveying, in proportion to the extent of discovery or exploration, superior rights, the operations of Vancouver 111 entering, surveying, and exploring to a considerable distance inland, the river Columbia, would, as a necessary consequence, supersede the discoverv of Captain Gray, to say nothing of the act of taking ])ossession in the name of his sovereign, which ceremony was duly performed and authenlically recorded iiy Captain Vancouver. This brings us to an examination of the conllicting claims of Great Britain and the United Stales on the ground of discovery, which may he said to form the essential point in the discussion, for it has above been .^hown that the claim derived from France must be ct)nM(lered as of little or no weight, while that derived from Sjiain, in as f.ir as re- lates to exclusive dominion, ib, neutralized by thestipi.laaonsof the Xootka conveiitio.i. It will be admitted that, wiieii the United States became an indepen- 6 Appendix : Mr. l^alanfiam'f dent nation, tliey possessed no cliiim, direct or indm-ct, to the Coliinihia territory. Their \^e8tern hounihiry in those days was delined by the treaty of 1783. Great Britain, on the contrary, liad at that time already directed her attention to the north-west coast ot Ameriea, as i« sulTieiently shown hy the voyage and discoveries of Captain Cook, who, in 1778, visited ar.d exi)Iored a great j)orti()n of it, from latitude 44^ northwards. That (jreat Ikitain was the first to acquire what may be called a bene- ficial interest in those regions by conmiercial intercourse will not either be denied. In proof of this fact we have the voyages of several Jkitish subjects, who visited the coast and adjacent islands ])reviously to the disj))ite witli Spain ; and thai her commerce, actual as well as prospective, in tiiat part of the world was considered a matter of great national im- portance, is shown by the resolute measures which she took for its pro- tection when Spain nnmifested a dis])08ition to interfere with it. The discoveries of Meares, in 1788, and the comidete survey of the coast and its adjacent islands, from about latitude 40" n(jrth wards, which was ellecfed by Captain V'ancouver, in 1792, 1793, and 1794, would appear t(j give to Gi- l Britain, as against the United States, as strong a cbiim, on the ground of di-covery and exploration coastwise, as ran well be imagini'd, limited only by wh it was aeeompii^lu•(! i)y Captain Gray at the mouth of the CtjUuhbia— which, so far as disi-overy is con- cerned, forms the strong point on the American side of the fpiestion. In point of accuracy and authenticity, it is bilieved that the ])er- formances of Cook and Vancouver stand pre-eminently superior to tliose of any (jther country whose vessels had in those tlays visited the north- west coast ; wh.) ' in ])oint of value and importance, surely the discovery of a single harbour, ahhough at the mouth of an imi)ortant river, cannot, as giving a claim to territory, be placed in competition with the vast extent of discovery and survey accomplished by the British navigators. As regards exploration inland, entin; ju>tiee must be done to the me- morable exploit of MM. Lewis and Clarke; but those distinguished travellers were not the first who ellected a jjassage across the Oregon territory from the Koeky Mountait ^ to the Pacific. As far back as 1733, thai fi'iit had been accomj)lishe(i by Mackenzie, a British sul)ject. In the eoiii'se of thi,- expedition, Mackenzie explored the upper waters nl a river, since called l^'aser's Hiver, which in process of time was traced to its junelioU with the sea, near liu* 4illli degree of latitude; thus forming, in point of exploinlinii, a eounteipoisc to the exploration ol that part of tlu: I'obnnbia wliiih was first vi.siled by Lewis and Clarke. Priority of sclllenunt is \\\v ihiid plea on which the American claim proper is made to rest. In 1811, an establishment for the purposes of trade waH luinudat the south side of the Columbia River, near to its mouth, by certain An\erican citizens. This establishment passed during the war into the hands of British sulijects ; but it was restored to the Ainericun (ioverii- ment in the year 1818, by an understanding between ihe two Govern- ments. Since then it has not, however, been in reality occupied by Americans. This is the (a»e of priority ot settlement. The Amern an Plenipotentiary lays some stress on the admission uv Counter SfatemciUs. 7 attributed to Lord Castlorcrti^h, then Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that *' the American Government had the most ample riu;lit to be reinstated, and to be considered the party in possession while treating of the titU'." Tlie undersii:ned is not inehned to dis]Mitc an assertion resting on such respei-tahlc atithoiitv; ImiI he miisi observe, in tlie first phicc, that the reservation implied by the words " while treating of the title," excludes any inference which might otherwise be drawn from the preceding words prejudicial to the title of (ireat Britain; and further, that when the authority of the Amciiean Minister is thus admitted for an observation which is pleaded against iMiglaiid, it is but fair that, on the part of the United Slates, credit should be given to England for the authenticity of a despatch from Ivord (!astle- reagh to the British Minister at WashingtoTi, which was conununicated verbally to the Government of the United States, when tli restoration of the establishment called Astoria, or I''ort George, was in contempla- tion, containing a complete reservation of the rights of Knu,laiid to the territory at the mouth of the Columbia. — (Statement of ilie Hritish Plenipotentiaries, Dec, IB'iG.) In (ine, the present state of the question between the two Govern- ments appear to be this : Great Britain ])088es8eH and exercises in common with the Unit(>d States a right of joint occupancy in iheOrcgon territory, of which right she can be divested with respec^t to any part i that territory, only by an ecpiitablc partition of the whole between the two powers. It is, for obvious reasons, desirable that such a jiartition should take place as soon as possible; and the difliculty apjjears to be in devising a line of denuirkation which shall leave to each ])arty that precise portion of the territory best suited to its interests and convenience. The British Government entertained the hope that by the proposid lately submitted for the consideration of the Anu;rican G'overnment, that object woidd have been accomplished. According to the arrangement therein contem])lated, the norllicin boundary of the United States, west of the Rocky Mountains, would, for a considerable distance, be carried along the same parallel of liitiindc which forms their northern boundary of the eastern side of these moun- tains — thus uniting the present eastern boundary of tlu; Ori-gon ter- ritory with the western boundary of the United States, from the llith parallel downwards. From the point where the 49th degree of latitude intersects the north-eastern branch of the Columhia river, (called in tluit part of its course, McCiilliviay's river,) the prop(.sed line of boundnry would, he along the middle of that river till it joins the Cohnnbia ; then along the middle of the Columhia to the oc«an— the naviwalion of the river re- maining perpetually free to lioth paiti«'». In addition. Great Britain otfers a separate territory on the Pacific, possessing an excillent harbour, with a further undei standing that any jiort or ports, whether on Vancouver's Island, or on the continent south of the 49ih parallel, to which the United States might desire to have access, shall be made free ports. It is believed, that by this arrang^m- nt ample justice would be done 8 Appcndiv : Mr. Vah/nliains to the claims of the Uiiitod States on wliatevcr ground tidvaiiccd, with rehitioii to the Orctj;on territorj'. As regards extent of territory, tliey >vonhl obtain acre for acre, nearly half of the entire territory to Ix; divided. As relates to the navigation of the principal river, they wonld enjoy a perfect etpiality of right with (Jreat liritain ; and with respect to iuirhonrf, it will be seen that CJreat Britain shows every disposition to consult, tluir convenience in that particular. On the other hand, were Great IJritain Ui abandon the line, of the Ccduinhia as a frontier, and to surrender her ri^ht to the navigation of that river, the piejudice occa- sioned to her by such an arrangement would, beyond all proportion, exceed the advantage accruing to the United States from the possession of a few more scjuare miles of territory. It must h*: obvicnis to every impartial invi-stigutor of the subject, that, in adhering to the line of the Colunil)ia, Great Britain is not iidluenccd by motives of and)ition, with reference to extent of territory, but by considerations of iitility, not to say necessity, which cannot be lost sight of, and for which allowance ought to be nnide, in an arrangement professing to be based on consi- derations (d' nuitual cunvenienee and advantage. The 1 ndv.rsigned believes that he has now noticed all the arguments advanceu by the American Plenipotentiary, in order to show that the United States are fairly entitleil to the entire regiiui drained by the Columbia River. He sincerely regrets that their views on this sul)ject should diil'er in so many essential res[)ects. It remains lor him to recpiest that, as the American Plenipotentiary declines the proposal ollered on the \iait of Great Britain, he will have the goodness to state what arrangement he is, on the part of the United States, prepared to propose ior an ecpiitable adjustment of the (piestion, and more especially that he will have the goodness to define the nature and extent of the claims which the United States may have to other por- ti(uis of the territory, to which allusion is made in the concluding part of his statement, as it is obvious that lu) arrangement can be made with respect to a portion of the territory in dispute, while a claim is reserved to any portion of the rennunder. The undersigned British Plenipotentiary has the honour to renew to the American Plenii)otentiary the assurance of his high considera- tion. R. Pakknuam. Counter iSfatcincHts. 9 J/r. Pdhtnhntn to Mr. IhichaiKin. (H: P.) Washington, July 29, 181, goa N()t\vithst!ui(liii^ the prolix (lisci.ssioii wliich the subject Iiqh ulrciuly undcMgoiic, tlio imdt'tsi'iiied, Ilcr Hiitimiiic Miijcsly's Miivoy Mxtni- ordiiiiiry imd .Minister Plciiipotoiiiijiry, iVcls ohliiriMl to' place on record u few observations in reply to the Htatenient, marked .1, li., wbicli he h.id the honour to receive on the Kith of this month, from the hands of' the Secretary of State of the United States, krnunating with ji proposition on tjje part of the United Slates for the settlement of the Ore (piestion. In this j)aper it is stated that " the title of the United States to that portion of the Oregon territory between the valley of the Cohnnliia, and the llubsian line, in 54'' 40' north latitude, is recorded in the Florida treaty. Under this treaty, dated on 22nd February, I8l<), Spain ceded to the United States all her ligliis, claims, and [)retensions to anv terri- tories west of the Rocky Mountains, and north of the Iriml parallel of latitude." " We contend," says the Secretary of Slate, " that at the date of this convention Spain had a good title, as against Gieat iJritain, to tlie whole Oregon territory, and, if this be established, the question is then (U'cidi;d iii lavour of the United States," the cijiivention between (Jreal liritain and Spain, signed at the Escurial, on the 28th October, 1190, notwithstanding. " If," says the American Plenipotentiary, "it should appear that this treaty was transient in its very nalure ; thai it conferred npon Great IJritain no right but that of merely trading with the Indians, whilst the country shouhl renniin unsettled, and Uiaking the necessary establish- ments for this purpose/, that it did not interfere with the ultimate sovereignty of Spain over the territory ; and, above all, that it was annulled by the war between S[)ain and (J real Britain in I7!^n, and has never since been renewed by the parties, then the IJritish claim to any portion of the territory will prove to be destitute of foundation." The \mdcrsigned will endeavour to show, not only that when Spain concluded with the United States the treaty of IS 11). commonly called the Florida treaty, the convention concluded between the former Power and Great IJritain, in 171)0, was considered by the j)arlies to it to be still in force; but even that, if no such treaty had ever existed, (Jreat Britain would stand, with reference to a claim to the Oregon territory, in a position at least as favourable as the United States, The treaty of 171)0 is not appealed to by the IJritish Government, as the American plenipotentiary seems to suppose, as their*' main reliance'' in the ))resent discussion ; it is appealed to, to show that, by the treaty of 1811), by wdiich " Spain ceded to the United States all her rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories west of the Rocky iVIoiintains, ai;d north of the 42d parallel of latitude," the United Stales ac(iuiicd no right to exclusive dominion over any part of the Oregon territory. The treaty of 17\)0 embraced, in fact, a variety of objects. It partook in some of its stipulations of the nature of a commercial convention; in other respects it mutt be considered as an acknuwledgmeut of existing IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I IJ4 Ilia ^ 1^ M 12.2 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 J4 ^ 6" — ► V} ^ /2 A 'c^. '/ ■^ Photographic Sdences Corporation » WEbT MAIN STREET WEBSTER. N.T. U5S0 (7t6) S7a-4S03 V ^^ \\ <* <* ^_ *. <^- 6^ '%'■ i/.A h! 10 Appendix : Mr. Pahenkam s rights, an admission of certain principles of international law, not to be revoked at the pleasure of either party, or to be set aside by a cessation of friendly relations l)etvveen them. Viewed in the former light, its sti])idations might have been considered as cancelled in consequence of the war which sulisequeutly took place between the contracting parties, were it not that by the treaty concluded at Madrid, on the 28th of August, l8i4, it was declared that all the treaties of commerce which subsisted between the two nations (Great Britain and Spam) in 1796 were thereby ratified and confirmed. In the latter point of view, the restoration of a state of peace was of itself sufficient to restore the admissions contained in the convention of 1790 to their full original force and vigour. There are, besides, very positive reasons for concluding that Spain did not consider the stipulations of the Nootka convention to have been revoked by the war of 1796, so as to require, in order to be binding on her, that they should have been expressly revived or renewed on the restoration of peace between the two cou'itrics. Had Spain considered that convention to have been annulled by the war ; in other words, had she considered herself restored to her former position and pretensions with respect to the exclusive dominio.. over the unoccupied parts of the North American continent, it is not to be imagined that she would have passively submitted to see the contending claims of Great Britain and the United States to a portion of that territory, the subject of negotiation and formal diplomatic transactions between those two nations. It is, %m the contrary, from her silence with respect to the continued occupation by the British of their settlements in the Columbia territory, subsequently to the convention of 1814, and when, as yet, there had been no transfer of her rights, claims, or pretensions to the United States ; and from her silence also, while important negotiations respecting the Co- lumbia territory, incompatible altogether with her ancient claim to exclusive dominion, were in progress between Greai Britain and the United States, fairly to be inferred that Spain considered the stipulations of the Nootka convention, and the principles therein laid down, to be still in force. But the American Plenipotentiary goes so far as to say that the British Government itself had no idea, in 1818, that the Nootka Sound ccmvention was then in force, because no reference was made to it on the i)art of England during the negotiation of that year on the Oregon question. In rejily to this argument it will sufficient for the undersigned to ren ind the American Plenipotentiary that in the year 1818 no claim, as derived from Spain, was or could be put forth by the United States, seeing that it was not until the following year (the year 1819), that the treaty was concluded by which Spain transferred to the United States her rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories west of the Rocky Mountains, and north of the 42nd parallel of latitude. Hence, it is obvious that in the year 1818 no occasion had arisen for appealing to the qualified nature of the rights, claims, and pretensions so transferred — a qualification imposed, or at least recognized, by the convention of Nootka. The title of the United States to the valley of the Columbia, the Counter Stafcmcnta. n t to be ssfition iiflcred p'.ivce icludcd all the (Great American Plenipotentiary observes, is older than the Florida treaty of February, 1810, and exists independently of its provisions. Even sup- posing, then, that the British ccustruction of the Nootka Sound conven- tion was correct, it could not apply to this portion of the territory in dis])ute. The undersigned must be permitted respectfully to inquire upon what principle, unless it be upon the principle which forms the foundation of the Nootka convention, could the United States have acrpiired a title to any part of the Oregon territory, previously to the treaty of 1819, and independently of its provisions? By discovery, exploration, settlement, will be the answer. But, says the American Plenipotentiary, in another part of his state- ment, the rights of Spain to the west coast of America, as far north as the 61° latitude, were so complete as never to have been seriously questioned by any European nation. They had been maintained by Spain with the most vigilant jealousy, ever since the discovery of the American continent, and had been ac- quiesced in by all European Powers. They had been admitted even by Russia, and that, too, under a sovereign peculiarly tenacious of the territorial lights of her empire, who, when complaints had been made to the court of Russia against Russian subjects, for violating the Spanish territory on the north-west coast of America, did not hrsit.'.te to assure the King of S})ain that she was extremely sorry that the repeated orders issued to prevent the subjects of Russia from violating, in the smallest degree, the territory belonging to another power should have been dis- obeyed. In what did this alleged violation of territory consist : assuredly in some attempted acts of discovery, exploration, or settlement. At that time Russia stood in exactly the same position with reference to the exclusive rights of Spain as the United States ; and any acts in contravention of those rights, whether emanating from Russia or from the United States, would necessarily be judged by one and the same rule. How then can it be pretended that acts which, in the case of Russia, were considered as criminal violations of the Spanish territory, should, in the case of citizens of the United States, be appealed to as con>tituting a valid title to the territory ati'cctcd by them ; and yet from this incon- sistency the American Plenipotentiary cannot escape, if he persist in con- sidering the American title to have been ])crfected by discovery, explora- tion, and settlement, when as yet Spain had made no transfer of her rights, if, to use his own words, " that title is older than the Florida treaty, and exi^;ts independently of its provisions." According to the doctrine of exclusive dominion, the exploration of Lewis and Clarke, and the establishment founded at the mouth of the Columbia, must be condemned as encroachments on the territorial rights of S[)ain. According to the opposite principle, by which discovery, exploration, and settlement arc corsidered as giving a valid claim to territory, those very acts are referred to in the course of the same paper as constituting a complete title in favour of the Uniteri States. Besides, how shall we reconcile this high estimation of the territorial 12 Appendix: 31/-. Pakenhams rights of Spain, considered independently of the Nootka Sound conven- tion, with the course ohserved by the United Stiites in their diplonuitic transactions with Great Britain, previously to the conclusion of the Florida treaty ? The claim advanced for the restitution of Fort George, under the first article of the treaty of Ghent ; the arrangement concluded for the joint occupation of the Oregon territcjry by Great Britain and the United States ; and, above all, the proposal actually made on the part of the United States for a partition of the Oregon territory ; all which transactions took place in the year 1818, when as yet Spain had made no transferor cession of her rights, — appear to be as little reconcdable with any regard for those rights, while still vested in Spain, as the claim founded on discovery, exploration, and settlement, accomplished previ- ously to the transfer of those rights to the United States. Supposing the arrangement proposed in the year 1818, or any other arrangement for the partition of the Oregon territory, to have been con- cluded in those days, between Great Britain and this country, what would, in that case, liave become of the exclusive rights of Spain ? There wo\dd have been no refuge for the United Slates but in an appeal to tlic principles of the Nootka convention. To deny, then, the validity of the Nootka convention, is to proclaim the illegality of any title founded on discovery, exploration, or settle- ment, })revious to the conclusion of the Florida treaty. To appeal to the Florida treaty as conveying to the United States any exclusive right?, is to attach a character of encroachment and of violation of the rights of Spain to every act to which the United States appealed in the negotiation of 1818, as giving them a claim to territory on the north- west coast. These conclusions appear to the undersigned to be irresistiijle. The United States can found no claim on discovery, exploration, and settlement, eftectcd previously to the Florida treaty, without admitting the princi])les of the Nootka convention, and the consequent validity of the parallel claims of Great Britain founded on like acts ; nor can they appeal to any exclusive right as acquired by the Florida treaty, without upsetting all claims adduced in their own proper right, by reason of dis- covery, exploration, and settlement, antecedent to that arrangement. The undersicjned trusts that he has now shown that the convention of nOO (the Nootka Sound convention), has continued in full and complete force up to the present moment. By reason, in the hrst place, of the commercial character of some of its provisions, as such expres:^ly renewed by the convention of August, 1814, between G^'cat Britain and Spain. By reason, in the next place, of the acquiescence of Spain in various transactions, to which it is not to be supi)osed that that power would have assented, had she not felt bound by the provisions of the conven- tion in question. And, thirdly, by reason of repeated acts of the Government of the United States, previous to the conclusion of the Florida treaty, manifest- ing adherence to the- principles of the Nootka convention, or at least di:cided allirmatively, with referiMu^e to the rehitive value and importance of the acts of discovery, cxjiloration, and settlements effected by cacii. As relates to the (pu^stion of principle, the undersigned thiidvs he can furnish no better argument than that contained in the following words, which he has already once quoted from the statement of the American Plenii)otentiary. " The title of the United States to the valley of the Columbia is older than the Florida treaty of February, 181<), under which the United States acquired all tlie rights of Spain to the north-west coast of America, and exists independently of its provisions." And, again, " the title of the United States to the entire region drained bv the Columbia river and its branches, was perfect and ccmiplete before the date of the treaties of joint occupancy of October, 1818, and August, 1827." The title thus referred to must be that resting on discovery, explora- tion, and settlement. If this title then is good, or rather was good, as against the exclusive pretensions of Spain, previously to the conclusion of the Florida treaty, so maist the claiu.s of Great Britain, restmg on the same grounds, be good also. Thus then it seems manifest that, with or without the aid of the Nootka Sound convention, the claims of Great Britain, resting on disco- very, exploration, and settlement, are, in point of principle, equally valid with those of the United States. Let us now see how the comparison will stand, when tried by the rela- tive value, importance, and authenticity of each. Rejecting previous discoveries north of the 42nd parallel of latitude as not sulBciently authenticated, it will be seen, on the side of Great Bri- tain, that, in 1776, Captain Cook discovered Cape Flattery, the southern entrance of the Straits of Fuca. Cook must also be considered the dis- coverer of Nootka Sound, in consequence of the want of authenticity in the alleged previous discovery of that port by Perez. In 1787, Captain Berkeley, a British subject, in a vessel under Aus- trian colours, discovered the Straits of Fuca. In the same year. Captain Duncan, in the ship Princess Royal, entered the Straits, and traded at the village of Classet. In 1788, Meares, a British subject, formed the establishment at Nootka, which gave rise to the memorable discussion with the Spanish Govern- ment, ending in the recognition, by that power, of the right of Great Bri- tain to form settlements in the unoccupied parts of the north-west })ortion 14 Appondir : Mr. Pahcnliam^s of the American continent, and in an engagement, on the part of S|)aiii, to reinstate Meares in the possession from whicli lie had hecn ejected by the Spanish commanders. In 1792, Vancouver, who had heen sent from England to witness the fulfilment of the above-mentioned engagement, and to effect a survey of the north-west coast, departing from Nootka Sound, entered the Straits of Fuca ; and, after an accurate survey of the coasts and inlets on both sides, discovered a passage northwards into the Pacific by which ne re- turned to Nootka, having thus circumnavigated the island which now bears his name. And here we have, as far as relates to Vancouver's Island, as complete a case of discovery, exploration, and settlement as can well be presented, giving to Great Britain, in any arrangement that may be made with regard to the territory in dispute, the strongest pos- sible claim to the exclusive possession of that island. While Vancouver was prosecuting discovery and exploration by sea, Sir Alexander Mackenzie, a partner in the North-west Compiiny, crossed the Rocky Mountains, discovered the head waters of the river since called Fraser's River, and following for some time the course of that river, effected a passage to the sea, being the first civilized man who traversed the continent of America from sea to sea in those latitudes. On the return of Mackenzie to Canada, the North-west Company established trading posts in the country to the westward of the Rocky IVIountains. In 1806 and 18il, respectively, the same company established posts on the Tacoutche, Tess«^, and the Columbia. In the year 1811, Thompson, the astronomer of the North-west Com- pany, discovered the northern head waters of the Columbia, and follow- ing its course till joined by the rivers previously discovered by Lewis and Clarke, he continued his journey to the Pacific. From that time till the year 1818, when the arrangement for the joint occupancy of the territory was concluded, the North-west Company continued to extend their operations throughout the Oregon territory, and to " occupy," it may be said, as far as occupation can be effected in regions so inaccessible and destitute of resources. While all this was passing, the following events occurred which con- stitute the American claim in their own proper right. In 1792, Gray entered the month of the Columbia River. In 1805, Lewis and Clarke effected a passage across the Rocky Mountains, and discovering a branch of the Columbia River, followed it until they reached the ocean. In 1811, the trading port or settlement of Astoria was established at the mouth of the Columbia, on the northern side of that river. This post or settlement passed during the last war into British hands by the voluntary act of the persons in charge of it — a fact most clearly established. It was restored to the United States in 1818, with certain well -authenticated reservations ; but it was never actually re-occupied by American citizens, having, from the moment of the original transfer or sale, continued to be occupied by British subjects. These are the acts of discovery, exploration, and settlement, referred to by the United States as giving them a claim to the valley of the Co- lumbia in their own proper right. Counter Stat enw Ufa. 15 The British Government are disposed to view them in tlie nios-t liberal sense, and *o give to thcni the utmost value to which they can in fairness be entitled; but there are circunislanccs attending each and all i)f them ■which must, in the opinion of any impartial investiffator of the subject, take from them a great deal of the elFect which the American negotiators assign to them, as giving to this country a claim to the entire region drained by the Columbia and its branches. In the first place, as relates to the discovery of Gray, it nmst be remarked that he was a private navigator, sailing principally for the purposes of trade, which fact establishes a wide dillerence, in a national point of view, between the discoveries accomplished by bim and those effected by Cook and Vancouver, who sailed in shi])s of the royal navy of Great Britain, and who were sent to the north-west coast lor the express purpose of exploration and discovery. In the next place, it is a circumstance not to be los sight of, that it was not for several years followed up by any act which could give it value in a national point of view ; it was not, in trutli, made known to the world either by the discoverer himself or by his Government. So recently as the year 1826, the American Plenipotentiaries in London remarked, with great correctness, in one of their reports, that " respect- ing the mouth of the Columbia River, we know nothing of Gray's dis- coveries but through British accounts." In the next place, the connexion of Gray's discovery with that of Lev/is and Clarke is interrupted by the intervening exploration of Lieutenant Broughton, of the British surveying-ship, Chatham. With respect to the expedition of Lewis and Clarke, it must, on a close examination of the route pursued by them, be confessed that, neither on their outward journey to the Pacific, nor on their homeward journey to the United States, did they touch ujion the head waters of the principal branch of the Columbia River, which lie far to the north of the parts of the country traversed and explored by them. Thompson, of the British North-west Company, was the first civi- lized person who navigated the northern, in reality the main, branch of the Columbia, or traversed any part of the country drained by it. It was by a tributary of the Columbia that Lewis and Clarke made their way to the main stream of that river, which they reached at a point distant, it is believed, not more than 200 miles from the point to which the river had already been explored by Broughton. These facts, the undersigned conceives, will be found sufficient to reduce the value of Lewis and Clarke's exploration on the Columbia to limits which would by no means justify a claim to the whole valley drained by that river and its branches. As to ^settlement, the qualified nature of the rights devolved to the United States, by virtue of the restitution of Fort Astoria, has already been pointed out. It will thus be seen, the undersigned confidently believes, that on the grounds of discovery, exploration, and settlement. Great Britain has nothing to fear from a comparison of her claims to the Oregon territory, taken as a whole, with those of the United States. That reduced to the valley drained by the Columbia, the facts on IT) Apitondix : Mr. l\tluitliains Counter Stafementd. Avhicli tlic United States rest their cjise arc far frum being of that com- plete and exehipive eliaractcr whieh would justify a claim to the whole valley oftlic Columbia; and Tiiat, cspceially as relates to Vancouver's Island, taken by itself, the preferable claim of Great Britain, in every point of view, seems to have been clearly demonstraled. After this exposition of the views entertained by the British Govern- ment respecting the relative value and im))ortance of the British and American claims, the American Plenipotentiary will not be surprised to hear that the undersigned does not feel at lil)erty to accept the proposal offered by the American Plenipotentiary for the settlement of the question. This proposal, in fact, oilers less than that tendered by the Arnericnn plenipotentiaries in the negotiation of 1820, and declined by the British Government. On that occasion it was proposed that the navigation of the Columbia should be made free to both parties. On this nothing is said in the proposal to which the undersigned has now the honour to reply ; while, with respect to the proposed freedom of the ports on Vancouver's Island south of latitude 49^, the facts which have been appealed to in this paper, as giving to Great Britain the strongest claim to the possession of the whole island, would seem to deprive sueh a proposal of any value. The undersigned, therefore, trusts that the American Plenipotentiary will be prepared to ofter some further proposal for the settlement of the Oregon question more consistent with fairness and equity, and with the reasonable expectations of the British Government, as defined in the statement (mucked D.)? which the undersigned had the honour to pre- sent to the American Plenipotentiary at the early part of the present negotiation. The undersigned British Plenipotentiary has the honour to renew to the Tlon. James Buchanan, Secretary of State and Plenipotentiary of the United States, the assurance of hib high consideration. Hon. James Buchanan^ Sfc. Sfc. R. Pakeniiam. London ; Printed by William (Jlowej and SoN», Stamfvjrd Street, mt com- ic whole :self, the eems to Govern- itish smd ])rised to proposal (luestion. Vmerican le British Columbia igned has reedom of ;ts which ritain the 1 seem to potentiary ent of the d with the ed in the )ur to pre- be present renew to tentiary of ENIIAM.