IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V m A <^j Z M /a ■■<>■§! 'S m 1.0 I.I ■- lilM 25 1^ 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 -^ 6" - ► m (pi ¥^'^ °m Photographic Sciences Corporation m c\ iV ^\ ^9) V 6^ ^9) r^^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 laire >s details iques du nt modifier xiger une ie filmage >d/ qu6es The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of Congress Photoduplication Service The Images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or Illustrated impression. taire The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely Included In one exposure are filmed beginning In the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams Illustrate the method: L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Library of Congress Photoduplication Service Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire iUm6. et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont filmds en commenpant 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 film^s 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. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole ■— *► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre fllmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, 11 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. i by errata med to Tient , une pelure, I faqon d e. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 M TO TH ENT BY Mr. Gi Calirorn April, 18 Thomas gon and nient, fu of Mr. G l8t. M it wu p argumei: of the F LL.D., e ing passi iana froi "The 1 Miitiuii helongini mountair tkoitfall of mouni ti iy 6 ttkrr.' « The w raaa, as a words of ford as h terms of purchase ance of I er he is c ford's au tation is Bradford passage ' ana. M wasgrea 1 The fact ery of th of the te and in tli understo Bgreeme in the tn Mr. Jerte Louisian to the c (Greenh( is not in part of th thus repi not say t Sdly. J of autho the govc Great Br 'taking p Buthofizi ity— was legislatio domiaioi MR. FALCONER'S REPLY TO MR. GREENHOW'S ANSWER; A " WITH MR. GREENHOWS REJOINDER. POSTSCRIPT TO THE SECOND EDITION OF A PAMPHLET, ENTITLED "THE OREGON QUESTION," &C., BY THOMAS FALCONER, ESQ. Mr. Greenhow, the author of the "Historj of Ortgon and California," has pubiisheil a pamjihlet, dated Washington, April, 1845, entitled 'An Answer to the Stricture* of Mr. Thomas Falconer, of Lincoln's Inn, on the History of Ore- gon and California." In noticing this answer, it is conve- nient, for the sake of brevity, to take each of the complaints of Mr. Greenhow separately. 1st. Mr. Falconer preferring, in every instance in which it was practicable, to use American authorities, has, in his argument on the Oregon question, cited from the "History of the Federal (iovernmeut," written by Alden Bradford, LL.D., editor of the .Massachusetts State Papers, the follow- ing passage respecting the extent of the purchase of Louis- iana from France by the government of the United States: "The purchase included all lands 'on Hit east aide of Ike Miuiitippi rivet (an as to include New Orleans) not then tetonging to the Uniird Slatet, at Jar as the peat chain nf mountains which divide the waters running into the Pacific and those falling into the Jlllantic ocean; ant from the said chain of mountains to the Pacific ocean, between the territory claim- ti by Chrat Britain on the one siit, and by Suain on the tthrr.' » The words in italics are placed between inverted com- mas, as a citation, by Dr. Bradford himself; they are not the words of Mr. Falconer. Mr. Falconer, adopting Dr. Brad- ford as his authority, cites the passage as expressing the terms of an agreement, to which the treaty of 1SU3, forthe purchase of Louisiana, gave validity; and so far a convey- ance of Louisiana, in these terms, underthe treaty. Whetn- er he is correct, or not, depends upon the value of Dr. Brad- ford's authority. Mr. Greenhow does not say that the quo- tation is incorrect, nor does he deny the statement of Dr. Bradford. There appears to be no reason to doubt that the passage was part ol the ofHcial terms of the sale of Louisi ana. Mr. Greenhow states, however, that "his surprise was great, on finding that Mr. Falconer had presented this passage as a stipulation in the treaty of October, IBO.I ' The fact is, that Mr. Falconer, in his work "on the Discov ery of the Mississippi," Stc, referred to the passage as part of the terms of the treaty; but in his first edition, (p. 10,) and in the second edition, (p. 11,) thinking he might be mis- understood, he sneaks of it as part of the terms "of the agreement" for the sale of Louisiana. The terms are not in the treaty itself— for the reason, perhaps, which induced Mr. Jelt'erson, in 1807, three years after the purchase of Louisiana, to fear that any; aiiuiiou io any claim extending to the coast of the Pacific would be oft'ensive to Spain, (Greenhow on the Oregon, p. 282.) But though the citation is not in the treaty itself, it does not follow that it is not partoftheagreement on which the treaty is founded. It is thus represented by Dr. Bradford, and Mr. Greenhow doo« not say that the passage is in any respect inaccurate. 2dly. Mr. Falconer has shown, that prior to the exercise of authority in the Orngon territory, under the orders of the government of the United States, the government of Great Britair. had "taken possession" of it, and "that the 'taking possession' of a new country hy persons ofltcially authorized— and no private person could assume the author- ity—was the exercise of a sovereign power, a distinct act of legislation, by which the territory became annexed to the dominions of th« Crows." To this Mr. Greenhow replies, 1 "that Mr. Falconer forgflt or concealed the fact, that Span- ish officers had landed on all those coasts, and on each occa- sion had most formally taken possession in the name of their monarch, and had made a settlement by the special or- ders of their government, before any attempt for the tame purpose had been made there by the people of any other nation.''' But Mr. Falconer has not acted thus; he has shown that two things are required to complete a title to vacant wastes— the one, the ofiicial assertion of sovereignty i and the other, occupation. The first, alone, is o( no avail without occupation. But it is well known that the Spaniards neverocciipied the country. If they had done so, the govern- ment of the United States could have made no claim to any part of it in 1814. The country was open to any government to possess and occu,,y it, notwithstanding any mere formal act of po8se.'s His- tory of Oregon," &c., p. 187. In the declaration of the ?ovemment of Spain, dated Aranjuez, June 4, 1790, the Conde de Florida Blanca ad- mitted that Spain had no establishment* or coloniu planted on the coasts or ports in dispute. 2 work reippcting the northern boundary oi Louidma it "entirely mla<|uotcd." The whole |iai>Bgu it aa I'ullowi: " refcrrinsf to the atate of thinga at the commi'nce- ment of thia ceiilury"— "the terriloriea of the United Mtatea wen;, at that time, all included between the Atlantic on the eaat. and the Miaaiaaippi on the weat. In the north were the Britiah pruvincea; in the weat lay Florida, helcmginK to bpain: and tieyond the Miaaisaippi tm; Spuiiiurda claimed the vnat region railed l.nniaiana. alretchinK from the (tuif of Mexico northward and nurlhweittward lu an undeflned ex- tent." Mr. Falconer hat cited the Inat linea only, in otderto con- trovert the atalement that Louiiiiana e«er extended ind>^li- nitely to the mirth. The other poitiona of the pasjug:e do not <|ualify oralt'ect the aMKcrtion uf the extent of Lonibiana, •nd were therefore omitted. The reaauiia to piove that Loniaiana did not extenil indefinitely to the north are,— that no authority ia citei. 6thly. Mr. F'alconer remarks that it is not honorable for the government of the United States to ur^je measures to populate the Oregon territory, in order to enforce itt claims at a future time. To this Mr. Greenhow rejdies that the Hudson's Bay Company, in 1837, "claimed and received the aid and consideration of the British government for their energy and success in expelling the Americans from the Columbia regions, and forming settlements there, by means of which ttiey were rapidly converting Oregon into ft British colony." But this is no reply. Mr. Greenhow must be porfectlv satisfied that the British government has not entertained the wish to settle the dispute by the agency of •ny forcible or hostile operations on the part of the British papulation in Oregon. Whatever reasons the Hudson's Bay Company may have advanced for oDlcial favor— and, if im- proper, they are surely not to be adopted by the government of the United States— they have not interlered with that re- Sard for public rights which tlie British government has ex- ibitcd, nut whicli Mr. Greenhow avers ought not to form a portion of the policy of the American government, whose true policy, he asserts, ought to K-, "by all lawful means, to resist the extension of Kuropean dominion in Ameiicu, and to confine its limits and abridge its duration, wherever it may actually exist."— (Greenhow on the Oregon, p. 335, n.) c:an that be lawfully abridged, which lawfully belongs to a foreign government'! The above are all the facts in Mr. Falconer's argument, which Mr. Greenhow comments on. He says there are in it "mistakes, misquutaliuun, and misrepresentations of all kinds;" but he certainly would not have been backward in pointing them out, if they were to be found. The argument, he admits, would he "irrefragable," if the facts were cor- rect,— but the facts are, in nearly every instance, carefully ■uttained by a reference to Mr. (Jreenhow's own work- Mr. Falconer himself did not think his argument was irrefragable. He thought it possible that he had overlook- ed iomething, and that there might have been a lair re- ply made to it. The answer, however, of Mr. Greenhow nas strengthened his belief that he is right; for Mr. Green- how would not have printed so feeble a denial, if the really immaterial matters which he has noticed were not all that he could find fault with, or attempt to answer. The very discourteous and intemperate spirit in which Mr. Greenhow has written bis reply, can only be injurious to his own reputation. There are some other remarks which the writer reluc- tantly alludes to, on account of their personal cbarccter. Mr. Greenhow states that the more taloable portion of the doc umentt publwhed by Mr. Falcener on the oiKorery «nd settlement ot Louisiana "were alnady well known in the United States, (see Sparks's Life of .M. La Salle, and While's 'New Recopilacion, ) and that » number still greater of more interesting papers on the same subject lie in manu- script before him." Whatever had been previously iiuh- lished, Mr. Falconer ha < noticed, and hia eatimation of the literary aervici;s of Mr. Sparks, as well as a sense of justice, led iiim to acknowledge with care what he had already done. Whether what Mr. F. has first published is more or less valualle than what had previously been published, ho will not contest; but he must sincerely hopes tiiat Mr. (ireenhow, whose industry will enable him to per- foim the labor creditably, —who will find no willing tritica to condemn him in its performance.— will publish the interesting documents to which he alluiles, r nd give to the world a complete and consecutive collectiin of the me- moirs and papers of the adventurous and distinguished men who first explori'd the western territory of North America- I'l i.NKv, .May J8, IH4.5. Observations on the above, by Robert Greenhow. Having presented Mr. Falconer's reply to my answer, in full, I shall proceed, without further preface, tf) offer some remarks upon it, agreeably to the order in which he has examined the several points: 1. Mr. Falconer, in his book on the Discovery of the Mississippi, to which my answer applies, and of which his pamphlet on the Oregon question is in part an abridgment, produced a quotation from the History of the Federal Government, by Alden Bradford, of Boston, as a stipulation in the trea- ty of 1603, whereby France ceded Louisiana to the United States; and he occupied mttny pages of his book with assertions and arguments to prove the premeditated bad faith and treachery of the American government, upon the strength of this passage. In my answer, I showed — what every one who pretends to write on this subject should have known — that no such passage, nor any like it, existed in the treaty; and I ended by saying that it was "most charitable to suppose that he never saw the treaty, as he must otherwise &tand amenable to the charge of having falsely brought forward the passage forming the subject of these remarks, aa one of its stipulations, with the object of defaming the American government." Mr. Falconer, in his "postscript," does not seem willing to admit that he never saw the treaty. He did, indeed, (as he says,) refer "to the passage as part of the terms of the treaty," in his first work; but, in his pamphlet, he had altered the %'ord irssS^ into agrtemetU, in order not to be misunderstood; and, "though the citation x$ not in iht trtaty itulf, it doe$ not follow thn manu- 1 been previouily l>ub- III his eitimation of tbe ,rll R» a icnse ol justice, ewhnt he hnd already si imldished is more or fiously been (."blished, St siiicdrely hopes Inal vill eimble him to per- ill find iiu willing lT"'" unce.-will publish the he alludes, r 'id (five to tivecolleoti(.n«'f the me- usanddisliiisuifhedmen rilory of North America. If Robtrt Grtmhow. ilconer's reply to my ceed, without further B upon it, agreeably to examined the several ok on the Discovery of ly answer applies, and e Oregon question is in d a quotation (torn the Jovernment, by Alden stipulation in the trea- ice ceded Louisiana to occupied many page* ons and argumenU to faith and treachery of jpon the strength of this 1 showed— what every on this subject should passage, nor any like it, ended by saying that it ppose that he never saw irwise stand amenable to ily brought forward the ct of these remarks, aa h the object of defaming n )ost8cript," does not seem ver saw the treaty. He refer "to the passage as saty," in his first work; ad altered the word trtsl'g to be misunderstood; and, in iht treaty Uuif, « doM repie»entw»««h' "** IS thus represented," he says, "by Dr. Bradford." This is i.ot the fact: Bradford, whose work is now be- fore me, says nothing whatever calculated to induce that supposition; and if he hBd,amanprofe8Bing,like Mr. Falconer, to enlighten the world on questions so momentous, should have consulted the treaty and documents relating to it himself, and not have depended on others, as others again may de pend on him for its contents. Mr. Falconer ends his paragraph by declaring that "Mr. Qreenhow does not say that the passage is, in any respect, inac- curate." This is a most strange assertion; for, in my muwer, which must have been before him at the time, I pronounce it to be "merely a gratuitous, and certainly unfounded, opinion aa to the limits of Lou- isiana." 2. On the rights of nations to occupy vacant ter- ritories, I cannot here enter into an argument. Many pages of my History of Oregon are devoted to this subject — parts of which are copied by Mr. Falconer in his book, with judicioxa alterations; and other parts are omitted, to suit his convenience. I leave him to reconcile as he can the opinions ex- pressed in the first sentence of this paragraph, (No. 2,) on the subject of "taking posieision," with those on the same subject, in the last sentence but one of the same paragraph. His concluding assertion, that "such (or any other) possession of Oregon, ac- companied by occupation, was first made under the authority of the British government," 1 deny in Mo. The coasts of Oregon were first explored by the Spaniards, who, in 1774 and 1775, landed there in many places, and "took possession" for their sovereign, before they had been seen by the people '- of any other civilized nation; and the first settlement made in any part of the regions now knovtm as Or»- gon, was that of the Spaniards at Nootka, in May, 1769. The next in point of time were those of the Americans, on the Columbia, in 1809, and the subse- quent years to 1814. The earliest British settlements west of the Rocky mountains, were made in 1806, in the region north of Oregon. The "taking possession" by the Spaniards, and afterwards by the British, was, as I have termed it in my history, "an empty pageant, securing no real righf^s to those by whom, or in whose names, it was performed;" but the priority in this point belongs to the Spaniards. The settle- ments at Nootka and Astoria were meant to be per- manent; they did not prove so, any more than those made in old times, at Babylon, Palmyra, or Thebes. 3. Here I have only to leave Mr. Falconer to reconcile, as he can, his assertion, that the British government had a right "to instruct Vancouver to take possession" of Oregon, (which the British gov- ernment, however, did not do,) with the terms of the convention of the Escurial — which was binding «t that tins on both Great Britain and Spain. 4. I did complain that Mr. Falconer had entirely misquoted the passage in my history relative to the northern boundary of Louisiana; and 1 do now com- plain that he has, in his postscript, left it to be inferred that he did not misquote "the lost lines," of which he now speaks. Those last lines he pre- sented between quotation marks, in words totally diflTerent from mine; and, although they referred specially to the condition and limits of Louisiana in 1600, he made them the object of an argument relative to the condition of things in 1763. Under these circumstances, 1 am fully authorized to sup. pose that the variation was not accidental, and that the omission was made with an object. In his postscript he has, however, acted directly and evi- dently without candor. 1 never said that "Louisi- ana extended indefinitely northward," at any time. On the contrary, I have proved in my history that it was bounded, in that direction, by the Hudson's Bay territories. I showed that its boundaries on the east were defined by the treaty of 1763; and that, on the north and northwest, they were wniir- fined — that is, they had not been defined by any agree- ment between the parties interested. Mr. Falconer could not possibly be mistaken aa to the difference between what I said, and what he represents me as having said. That Louisiana did not extend indefinitely to the north, no reasons were required from Mr. Falconer to prove; and those ad- duced by him are, unfortunately, all either irrelevant or unfounded. Louisiana was not partly formed out of the province of Canada; it was made subordinate to the government of Canada in 1712; but in 1717 it became an independent government, and continued 80 as long as France held possession of it. No one ever doubted that Louisiana did not extend further north than the Illinois, or that all north of the Illi- nois, and south of the Hudson's Bay territory, formed part of Canada. But the Illinois lies east of the Mississippi; while the question was exclusively confined by me to the regions north and northwest of that river; and in 1762, when the Mississippi waa made the dividing line between the British and French possiessions, "all the territory north and northwest of its source remained a portion of the Hudson's Bay territories," as it had been ever aines 1669, agreeably to many treatiea between Franc* and Qreat Britain- Mr. Falconer would scarcely succeed in convincing Sir Henry Felly, or Sir (Qeorge Simpson, or any other member of the Hud- son's Bay Company, that the territories of the Red river, the Assinaboin, the Saskatehawine, and the Athabasca had ever formed part of Canada. With regard to the map cited by Mr. Falconer, on the authority of M. de Mofras, as proving inoon- testably that Canada, in 1757, extended to the Pacific, and as containing tbe course of a river in all respects identical with liie Columbia, and which Mr. Falconer waa pleased to regard as the official map employed by the plenipotentiaries of France and Great Britain in 1762,-1 showed that it was drawn and presented by the French commissaries appointed under the treaty of 1748, with the ob- ject of exposing the extravagant pretensions of the British in America; and that it contained no river entering the Pacific from the interior of America near the 46th degree of latitude, (as expressly as- serted by M. de Mofras,) nor any allusion to Cana- da, or New France, nor any sign whatever of French dominion in America; while, on the con- trary, the whole division of the continent, from sea to sea, between the 40th and the 48lh parallels of latitude— including, of course, nearly all Canada — appears en it as New England. My assertions were specific, and were either true or false. Mr. Falconer should have plainly admitted them or de- nied them; but, instead of this, he quibbles again. "Mr. Greenhow," he says, "appears to assert that this map relates to the negotiations of 1748. The dates do not confirm this view of the case," &c. Does he mean that the map specially mentioned by M. de Mofras was not presented by the French commissaries appointed under the treaty of 1748? that it was the map used by the plenipotentiaries in 176i2? that it does contain a river which corresponds in any respect with the Columbia? and that it tends to prove that Canada extended to the Pacific? 5. Mr. Falconer declared in his book, that "it is not honorable, while the title to the territory is unde- termined between the respective governments, to urge measures to populate it with American citizens, in order to give facilities for its occupation at a fu- ture period." On this point, I showed, by reference to the published correspondence between the Hud- son's Bay Company and the British government, that the company, in 1838, "claimed and received the aid and consideration of government for their energy and success in expelling the Americans from the Columbia regions, and forming settlements there, by means of which they were rapidly con- verting Oregon into a British colony." This, says Mr. Falconer, is no reply;andhe then shifts thisques- tion to one about the settlement of the dispute by the agency of forcible and hostile operations. Whether such operations have been authorized by the British government, we know not; they may be ordered and carried into eflfect in virtue of a single despatch from the Colonial Ofldce. In the United States, none such could be executed, or even ordered, until they had ^been discussed and ap- proved in Congress. Mr. Falconer has, however, most positively and improperly misrepresented my views, and imputed to me dishonorable motives, in the latter part of the same paragraph. I assert that "the true policy of the American government should be, by all lawful means, to resist the extension of European domin- ion in America, and to confine its limits and abridge iu duration wherever it may actually exist." This, Mr. Falconer is pleased to interpret as an asser- tion that "regard for public rights ought not to form a portion of the policy of the American government;" and he asks, in conclusion: "Can that bo lawfully abridged, which lawfully belongs to a foreign gov- ernment?" Has Mr. Falconer not heard of trea- ties, of purchases or cessions of territories in ex- change for other advantages? Are these not lawful means cfabridging the limits and the duration of a dominion? Finally, may not a nation lawfully re- sort to war for such purposes, when it considers its own safety threatened by its neighbors? Mr. Falconer may, with perfect safely, represent my answer aa feeble, as relating to immaierial mailers, and ds displaying a diacourleous and inlemperale spirU; whilst he well knows that it will be seen by very few of those who read his reply to it in England. The terms of that reply have doubtless been based on this consideration, or he would not have ven- tured to misrepresent my statements, as he has here done, in every particular. If he is, as he professes to be, strengthened in thebelief of the correctness of his views by my answer, he will probably not have made any alterations in the edition of his pamphlet, to which this postscript is annexed; but will have sent it forth to the world with the quotation from Bradford's history as a stipulation in the Louisiana treaty; with the charges of treachery and bad faith against the United States, based on that pretended stipulation; and with the assertion that the map pro- duced by the French commissaries in 1757, shows the course of the Columbia, and proves that Canada ex- tended to the Pacific: in return for which, he will doubtless receive the approval of the members of his government, and the newspapers of London will compliment him on his triumphant vindication of his first positions. While such liberties are taken by British histo- rians, with regard to subjects on which accurate in- formation may be so easily obtained, and errors so easily detected, what reliance can be placed in their accounts of expeditions to AflTghanistan, and em- bassies to Ethiopia, where they may represent the circumstances as they please, without fear of contra- diction? ROBERT GREENHOW. Washington, June 24, 1845. views, and imputed the latter part of the the true policy of the be, by all lawful jf European domin- its limits and abridge itually exist." This, itcrpret as an asser- hts ought not to form nerican government)" Can that be lawfully igs to a foreign gov- sr not heard of irea- 9 of territories in ex- Are these not lawful tnd the duration of a » nation lawfully re- 8, when it considers s neighbors'' rfect safely, represent ; lo immaterial mailers, I and intemperate spirit; will be seen by very epiy to it in England, doubtless been based would not have ven- cmenta, as he has here he is, as he professes Bf of the correctness of will probably not have lition of his pamphlet, mexed; but will have ih the quotation from Btion in the Louisiana eachery and bad faith ased on that pretended rtion that the map pro- aries in 1757, shows the proves that Canada ex- turn for which, he will I of the members of his lapers of London will umphant vindication of taken by British histo- on which accurate in- Dbtained, and errors lo i can be placed in their AfTghanistan, and em- ihey may represent the , without fear of contra- RT GREENHOW. 145. m^ IL a-, V I W r. ', ^