Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Senate.]

Occupation of the Oregon River.

[MARCH 1, 1825.

possessed on the subject should go to the public; and discovery of the whole river from its source downwards, as soon as that gentleman should have submitted his and to take forma! possession in the name of their Goviews to the Senate, Mr. H. said he would agree to post-vernment. In 1793, Sir Alexander M'Kenzie had been pone the bill.

Mr. CHANDLER opposed the taking up the bill, for the reasons he had before stated. He thought it was best to act first on the business necessary to be passed, and then would be a very good time to debate a bill 7 which there was no intention of passing during the pre:sent session.

The motion to take up the bill prevailed; and the Senate went into committee of the whole on it, Mr. ELLIOTT in the chair.

sent from Canada by the British Government to effect the same object; but he missed the sources of the river, fell upon the Tacoutche Tesse, and struck the Pacific about five hundred miles to the North of the mouth of the Columbia.

In 1803, the United States acquired Louisiana, and with it an open question of boundaries for that vast province. On the side of Mexico and Florida, this question was to be settled with the King of Spain; on the North and Northwest with the King of Great Britain. It hap Mr. BENTON, in reply to Mr. DICKERSON, said, that pened in the very time that we were signing a treaty in he had not intended to speak to this bill. Always un- Paris for the acquisition of Lousiana, that we were sign. willing to trespass upon the time and patience of the ing another in London for the adjustment of the boun Senate, he was particularly so at this moment, when the dary line between the Northwest possessions of the/ session was drawing to a close, and an hundred bills upon United States and of the King of Great Britain. The the table were each demanding attention. The occu- negotiators of each were ignorant of what the others pation of the Columbia River was a subject which had had done; and on remitting the two treaties to the engaged the deliberations of Congress for four years Senate of the United States, for ratification, that for the past, and the minds of gentlemen might be supposed to purchase of Louisiana was ratified without restriction; be made up upon it. Resting upon this belief, Mr. B. the other with the exception of the fifth article. It was as reporter of the bill, had limited himself to the duty this article which adjusted the boundary line between of watching its progress, and of holding himself in readi- the United States and Great Britain, from the Lake of ness to answer any inquiries which might be put. In- the Woods to the head of the Mississippi; and the Senate quiries he certainly expected; but a general assault, at refused to ratify it, because, by possibility, it might jeothis late stage of the session, upon the principle, the po-pard the Northern boundary of Louisiana. The treaty licy, and the details of the bill, had not been anticipated. was sent back to London, the fifth article expunged; Such an assault, had, however, been made by the Sena- and the British Government, acting then as upon a late tor from New Jersey, (Mr. D.) and Mr. B. would be un- occasion, rejected the whole treaty, when she failed in faithful to his duty if he did not repel it. In discharg- securing the precise advantage of which she was in ing this duty, he would lose no time in going over the search. gentleman's calculations about the expense of getting a member of Congress from the Oregon to the Potomac; nor would he solve his difficulties about the shortest and best route; whether Cape Horn should be doubled, a new route explored under the North pole, or mountains climbed, whose aspiring summits present twelve feet of defying snow to the burning rays of a July sun. Mr. B. looked upon these calculations and problems as so many dashes of the gentleman's wit, and admitted that wit was an excellent article in debate, equally convenient for embellishing an argument, and concealing the want of one. For which of these purposes, the Senator from New Jersey had amused the Senate with the wit in question, it was not for Mr. B. to say, nor should he undertake to disturb him in the quiet enjoyment of the honor which he had won thereby. Leaving all that out of view, he would proceed directly to expose and confute those parts of the gentleman's argument in which he had favored the pretensions of Great Britain at the expense of the rights and interests of his own country. These parts are

1st. His admission of title, on the part of Great Britain, to the right bank of the Columbia River,

2d. His declarations that the United States were precluded from occupying the country on the Columbia River by the third article of the London convention

of 1818.

3d. His menace of a conflict with Great Britain if we presumed to occupy it.

It is now, Mr. President, continued Mr. B. precisely two and twenty years since a contest for the Columbia has been going on between the United States and Great Britain. The contest originated with the discovery of the river itself. The moment that we discovered it, she claimed it; and without a color of title in her hand, she has labored ever since to over-reach us in the arts of negotiation, or to bully us out of our discovery by me

naces of war.

In the year 1790, a citizen of the United States, Capt. Gray, of Boston, discovered the Columbia at its entrance into the sea; and in 1803, Lewis and Clarke was sent by the Government of the United States, to complete the

In the year 1807, another treaty was negotiated be tween the United States and Great Britain. The nego tiators on both sides were then possessed of the fact, that Louisiana belonged to the United States, and that her boundaries to the North and West were undefined. The settlement of this boundary was a point in the nego tiation, and continued efforts were made by the British Plenipotentiaries to over-reach the Americans, with respect to the country West of the Rocky Mountains. Without presenting any claim, they endeavored "to leave a nest egg for future pretensions in that quarter." (State Papers, 1822-3. Finally, an article was agreed to. The 49th degree of North latitude was to be followed West, as far as the territories of the two countries ex tended in that direction, with a proviso against its application to the country West of the Rocky Mountains. This treaty shared the fate of that of 1803. It was never ratified. For causes unconnected with the questions of boundary, it was rejected by Mr. Jefferson without a reference to the Senate.

At Ghent, in 1814, the attempts of 1803 and 1807 were renewed. The British Plenipotentiaries offered articles upon the subject of the boundary, and of the Northwest Coast, of the same character with those previously offered; but nothing could be agreed upon, and nothing upon the subject was inserted in the Treaty signed at that place.

At London, in 1818, the negotiations upon this point were renewed; and the British Government, for the first time, uncovered the ground upon which its preten sions rested. Its Plenipotentiaries, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Goulbourn, asserted (to give them the benefit of their own words, as reported by Messrs. Gallatin and Rush,) "That former voyages, and principally that of Captain Cook, gave to Great Britain the rights derived from discovery, and they alluded to purchases from the natives South of the river Columbia, which they alleged to have been made prior to the American Revolution. They did not make any formal proposition for a boundary, but intimated that the river itself was the most con venient that could be adopted, and that they would not agree to any which did not give them the harbor

[blocks in formation]

at the mouth of the river in common with the United States."-Letter from Messrs. Gallatin and Rush, October 20, 1820.

should be tantamount to an abandonment of the claim

countries."

The substance of this agreement was inserted in the convention of October, 1818. It constitutes the third article of that Treaty, and is the same upon which the Senator from New Jersey, (Mr. DICKERSON,) relies, for excluding the United States from the occupation of the

Columbia.

[Senate.

treaty was well understood at the time that it was made, and its terms will speak for themselves at the present day. It was a treaty of concession, and not of acquisition of rights, on the part of Great Britain. It was so characterized by the opposition, and so admitted to be by the ministry, at the time of its communication to the British Parliament.

[Here Mr. B. read passages from the speeches of Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt, to prove the character of this Treaty.]

To this the American Plenipotentiaries answered, in a way better calculated to encourage than to repulse the groundless pretensions of Great Britain. "We did not assert, (continue these gentlemen, in the same letter,) we 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. We did not know, with precision, what value our Government set on the "Mr. Fox said, What, then, was the extent of our country to the Westward of these mountains; but we were not authorized to enter into any agreement which nied by Spain was of no consequence)-- and to what exrights before the convention-(whether admitted or deto it. It was at last agreed, but as we thought, with tent were they now secured to us? We possessed and some reluctance on the part of the British Plenipo-out restraint or limitation. We possessed and exercised exercised the free navigation of the Pacific Ocean, withtentiaries, that the country on the Northwest Coast, the right of carrying on fisheries in the South Seas equalclaimed by either party, should, without prejudice to ly unlimited. This was no barren right, but a right of the claims of either, and for a limited time, be opened which we had availed ourselves, as appeared by the pafor the purposes of trade, to the inhabitants of both pers on the table, which showed that the produce of it thousand pounds sterling. This estate we had, and were had increased, in five years, from twelve to ninety-seven daily improving; it was not to be disgraced by the name of an acquisition. The admission of part of these rights, by Spain, was all we had obtained. Our right, before, was to settle in any part of the South or Northwest Coast of America, not fortified against us by previous occupancy, and we were now restricted to settle in certain places only, and under certain restrictions. This was an important concession on our part. Our rights of Such an exhibition of title said Mr. B. is ridiculous, was limited, and to be carried on within certain distances fishing extended to the whole ocean, and now it, too, and would be contemptible in the hands of any other of the Spanish settlements. Our right of making settlepower than that of Great Britain. Of the five grounds ments was not, as now, a right to build huts, but to of claim which she has set up, not one of them is tenable plant colonies, if we thought proper. Surely these were against the slighest examination. Cook never saw, much less took possession of, any part of the Northwest considered, if we were to judge by the triumphant lannot acquisitions, or rather conquests, as they must be coast of America, in the latitude of the Columbia River. All his discoveries were far North of that point, and not guage respecting them, but great and important con66 cessions." By the third article, we are authorized to one of them was followed up by possession, without navigate the Pacific Ocean and South Seas, unmolested, which, the fact of discovery would confer no title. The for the purpose of carrying on our fisheries, and to land Indians were not even named, from whom the purchases are stated to have been made anterior to the Revolution- the natives; but, after this pompous recognition of on the unsettled coasts, for the purpose of trading with ary War. Not a single particular is given which could right to navigation, fishery, and commerce, comes anoindentify a transaction of the kind. The only circum-ther article, the sixth, which takes away the right of stance mentioned applies to the locality of the Indians landing, and erecting even temporary huts, for any pursupposed to have made the sale, and that circumstance pose but that of carrying on the fishery, and amounts to invalidates the whole claim. They are said to have resided to the "South" of the Columbia; by conse- for the purpose of commerce with the natives."—British a complete dereliction of all right to settle in any way quence they did not reside upon it, and could have no Parliamentary History, Vol. 28, p 990. right to sell a country of which they were not the pos

In subsequent negotiations, the British Agents further rested their claim upon the discoveries of M'Kenzie, in 1793, the seizure of Astoria, during the late war, and the Nootka Sound Treaty, of 1790.

sessors.

Mr. Pitt, in reply. "Having finished that part of Mr. proceeded to the next point, namely, that gentleman's Fox's speech which referred to the reparation, Mr. Pitt argument to prove, that the other articles of the convention were mere concessions, and not acquisitions. In this country had gained consisted not of new rights, it answer to this, Mr. Pitt maintained, that, though what certainly did of new advantages. We had, before, a right to the Southern whale fishery, and a right to navitrade on the coasts of any part of Northwest America; gate and carry on fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, and to but that right not only had not been acknowledged, but disputed and resisted: whereas, by the convention, it was secured to us-a circumstance which, though no new right, was a new advantage."-Same-page 1002.

M'Kenzie was sent out from Canada, in the year 1793, to discover, at its head, the river which Captain Gray had discovered at its mouth, three years before. But M'Kenzie missed the object of his search, and struck the Pacific five hundred miles to the North, as I have already stated. The seizure of Astoria, during the war, was an operation of arms, conferring no more title upon Great Britain to the Columbia, than the capture of Castine and Detroit gave her to Maine and Michigan. This new ground of claim was set up by Mr. Bagot, his Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to this Republic, in 1817, and set up in a way to contradict and relinquish all their other pretended titles. Mr. Bagot was remonstrating against the occupation, by the United States, of the Columbia River, and reciting that it had been taken possession of, in his Majesty's name, during the late war, "and had SINCE been CONSIDERED as forming a part of his Majesty's dominions." The word "since," is exclusive of all previous pretension, and the Ghent Treaty, which stipulates for the restoration of all the captured posts, is a complete extinguisher to this idle pretension. Finally, the British Article 3d, of the Nootka Sound Treaty. negotiators have been driven to take shelter under the "In order to strengthen the bonds of friendship, and Nootka Sound Treaty of 1790. The character of that to preserve, in future, a perfect harmony and good un

racter of the Treaty even from the high authority of these But, continued Mr. BENTON, we need not take the cha rival leaders in the British Parliament. The Treaty will speak for itself. I have it in my hand, and will read the article relied upon to sustain the British claim to the

Columbia River.

Senate.]

Occupation of the Oregon River.

[MARCH 1, 1825.

cific Ocean. The Columbia flows from the same moun. tains, and discharges itself into the Pacific in north latitude 46 20. Both of them are capable of receiving ships at their mouths, and are navigable throughout for boats." "But whatever course may be taken from the Atlantic, the Columbia is the line of communication from the Pacific Ocean, pointed out by nature, as it is the only navigable river in the whole extent of Vancouver's ni

derstanding between the two contracting parties, it is agreed that their respective subjects shall no 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 coasts of those seas in places not already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or of making settlements there, the whole subject, nevertheless, to the restrictions and provisions specified in the three fol-nute survey of that coast; its banks, also, form the first lowing articles."

The particular clause of this article, relied upon by the advocates for the British claim, is that which gives the right of landing on parts of the Northwest Coast, not already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on commerce and making settlements. The first inquiry arising upon this clause is, whether the coast, in the latitude of the Columbia River, was unoccupied at the date of the Nootka Sound Treaty? The answer is in the affirmative. The second is, whether the English landed upon this coast while it was so unoccupied? The answer is in the negative; and this answer puts an end to all pretension of British claim founded upon this treaty, without leaving us under the necessity of recurring to the fact that the permission to land, and to make settlements, so far from contemplating an acquisition of territory, was limited, by subsequent restrictions, to the erection of temporary huts for the personal accommodation of fishermen and traders only.

level country in all the southern extent of continental coast from Cook s entry; and, consequently, the most northern situation, suitable to the residence of a civilized people. By opening this intercourse between the At lantic and Pacific Oceans, and forming regular establish ments through the interior, and at both extreines, as well as along the coast and Islands, the entire command of the fur trade of North America might be obtained, from latitude 48 to the pole, except that portion of it which the Russians have in the Pacific. To this may be added, the fishing in both seas, and the market of the four quar ters of the globe. Such would be the field for commer cial enterprise, and incalculable would be the produce of it, when supported by the operations of that credit and capital which Great Britain so pre-eminently pos sesses. Then would this country begin to be remuner. ated for the expense it has sustained in discovering and surveying the coast of the Pacific Ocean, which is at present left to American adventurers, who, without re The truth is, Mr. President, continued Mr. B. Great gularity or capital, or the desire of conciliating future Britain has no color of title to the country in question. confidence, look altogether to the interests of the mo. She sets up none. There is not a paper upon the face ment. Such adventurers, and many of them, as I have of the earth in which a British Minister has stated a claim. been informed, have been very successful, would instantI speak of the King's Ministers, and not of the Agents ly disappear from before a well regulated trade."employed by them. The claims we have been examin-Many political reasons, which it is not necessary here ing are thrown out in the conversations and notes of to enumerate, must present themselves to the mind of Diplomatic Agents. No English Minister has ever put every man acquainted with the enlarged system and cahis name to them, and no one will ever risk his character pacities of British commerce, in support of the measures as a statesman by venturing to do so. The claim of which I have briefly suggested, as pro nising the most Great Britain is nothing but a naked pretension, founded important advantages to the trade of the United Kingn the double prospect of benefitting herself and injuring doms." the United States. The fur trader, Sir Alexander M'Kenzie, is at the bottom of this policy. Failing in his attempt to explore the Columbia River, in 1793, he, nevertheless, urged upon the British Government the advantages of taking it to herself, and of expelling the Americans from the whole region West of the Rocky Mountains. The advice accorded too well with the passions and policy of that government, to be disregarded. It is Mr. B. said, it was curious to observe with what close. a government which has lost no opportunity, since the ness every suggestion of McKenzie had been followed peace of '83, of aggrandizing itself at the expense of the up by the British Government. He recommended that United States. It is a government which listens to the the Hudson Bay and Northwest Company should be suggestions of its experienced subjects, and thus an in-united; and they have been united. He proposed to dividual, in the humble station of a fur trader, has pointed out the policy which has been pursued by every Minister of Great Britain, from Pitt to Canning, and for the maintenance of which a war is now menaced.

[Here Mr. B. read the following passages from Sir Alexander McKenzie's History of the Fur Trade.j "The Russians, who first discovered that, along the coasts of Asia, no useful or regular navigation existed, opened an interior communication by rivers, &c. and through that long and wide extended continent, to the straight that separates Asia from America, over which they passed to the American continent. Our situation is, at length, in some degree, similar to theirs: the nonexistence of a practicable passage by sea, and the existence of one through the continent, are clearly proved, and it requires only the countenance and support of the British Government to increase, in a very ample proportion, this national advantage, and secure the trade of that country to its subjects.""By the rivers that discharge themselves into Hudson's Bay, at Port Nelson, it is proposed to carry on the trade to their source, at the head of the Saskatchiwine river, which rises in the Rocky Mountains, not eight degrees of longitude from the Pa

For a boundary line between the United States and Great Britain, west of the Mississippi, McKenzie propos es the latitude of 45 degrees, because that latitude is necessary to give the Columbia River to Great Britain. His words are: "Let the line begin where it may on the Mississippi, it must be continued west, till it terminates in the Pacific Ocean, to the South of the Columbia."

extent the fur trade of Canada to the shore of the Pacific
Ocean; and it has been so extended. He proposed that
a chain of trading posts should be formed through the
continent, from sea to sea; and it has been formed. He
recommended that no boundary line should be agreed
upon with the United States, which did not give the
Columbia river to the British; and the British ministry
declare that none other shall be formed. He proposed
to obtain the command of the fur trade from latitude 45
degrees north; and they have it even to the Mandan
Villages, and the neighborhood of the Council Bluffs.
He recommended the expulsion of American traders
from the whole region west of the Rocky Mountains;
and they are expelled from it. He proposed to con
mand the commerce of the Pacific Ocean; and it will
be commanded the moment a British fleet takes position
in the mouth of the Columbia. Besides these specified
advantages, McKenzie alludes to other "political consi
derations," which it was not necessary for him to parti
cularize. Doubtless it was not.
They were sufficient-
ly understool. They are the same which induced the
retention of the Northwestern posts, in violation of the
treaty of 1783; the saine which induced the acquisition

[blocks in formation]

of Gibraltar, Malta, the Cape of Good Hope, the Islands of Ceylon and Madagascar; the same which make Great Britain covet the possession of every commanding position in the four quarters of the Globe.

Mr. B. here adverted to the inconsistency, on the part of Great Britain, of following the 49th parrallel to the summit of the Rocky Mountains, and refusing to follow it any further. He affirmed that the principle which would make that parrallel a boundary to the top of the mountain, would carry it out to the Pacific Ocean. He proved this assertion by recurring to the origin of that line. It grew out of the treaty of Utrecht, that treaty which, in 1704, put an end to the wars of Queen Anne and Louis the 14th, and fixed the boundaries of their respective dominions in North America. The tenth article of that treaty was applicable to Louisiana and to Canada. It provided that commissioners should be appointed by the two powers to adjust the boundary between them. The commissioners were appointed, and did fix it. The parrallel of 49 degrees was fixed upon as the common boundary from the Lake of the Woods, "indefinitely to the west." This boundary was acquiesced in for an hundred years. By proposing to follow it to the summit of the Rocky Mountains, the British Government admits its validity; by refusing to follow it out, they become obnoxious to the charge of inconsistency, and betray a determination to encroach upon the territory of the United States, for the undisguised purpose of selfish aggrandizement.

Mr. B. would not argue the title of the United States to the same country. He would barely state it, and affirm that it was consecrated by every requisite which gives validity to the claims of nations. It rested upon, 1. Discovery of the Columbia river, by Capt. Gray, in 1790.

2. Purchase of Louisiana in 1803.

[Senate.

act the title of the United States was consummated. Possession, without which discovery would confer no absolute right, now completed her title; and this settlement, as an American post, was attacked and captured by the arms of Great Britain during the late war. Finally, the treaty of 1819, with Spain, by which we acquir. ed all her rights north of 42 degrees, invested the United States with all the claims which that power possessed to the Northwest coast. Mr. B. would not consume the time of the Senate in tracing the titles of Spain. They were universally known to have been valid against Rus sia to latitude 58, and against England, throughout its whole extent.

Having disposed of the questions of title, Mr. B. took up the next point of inquiry, that of possession. On this point he took four positions.

1. That the United States had the right of possession. 2. That Great Britain had the actual possession." 3. That she resists the possession of the United States. 4. That, after the year 1828, the party in possession will have the right of possession until the question of title shall be decided by arms or negotiation.

1. On the first point, the right of possession on the part of the United States, Mr. B. should not have thought it necessary to say any thing to an American Senate, had it not been for the extraordinary position assumed by the Senator from New Jersey, (Mr. DICKERSON.) That gentleman maintains that the United States have no right to the possession of this country, and has quoted the third article of the London convention of 1818, to sustain that idea. On the contrary, I maintain that we have a right to the possession, first, as the true owners of the country; secondly, as entitled to restitution under the first article of the Ghent treaty; thirdly, as having a mutual right of entry with the British for ten years, under the London convention above quoted. The third arti

3. Discovery of the Columbia, from its head to its cle of this convention stipulates that any country claimed mouth, by Lewis and Clark, in 1805. 4. Settlement at Astoria in 1811. 5. Treaty with Spain of 1819.

By these several titles the United States have collect ed into her own hands all the rights conferred by first discovery and first settlement, reinforced by all the claims of France and Spain.

by either party, to the West of the Rocky Mountains, shall be "free and open to the citizens and subjects" of the two powers, for the period of ten years from its signature. Yet, by a strange process of reasoning, the Senator from New Jersey construes this mutual right of entry, expressly secured to the "citizens" and "subjects" of the "two" powers, as an exclusive privilege granted The discovery of the Columbia, from the sea, in 1790, to one, and that one not his own country, but the "subwas the act of an American citizen. Captain Gray, of Jects" of his Britannic Majesty. But I will confront that Boston, sailing under the flag of the United States, was gentleman with authority upon this subject-the authothe first navigator that ever saw or entered that river.rity of a British minister, which will probably have more He took possession of it in the name of his country, be weight with bim than the argument of an American Sestowed upon it a name which is national in the United nator. Lord Castlereagh himself, at the time of negoStates, which has been recognized by all the powers of tiating that treaty, admitted our right to the possession. Europe, and which, in itself, constitutes a badge of our Mr. Rush, in his letter to Mr. Adains, of Feb. 1818, says: ownership. The purchase of Louisiana gave us all the "It is proper, at this stage, to say, that Lord Castlerights of Spain west of the Mississippi. If it is objected reagh admitted, in the most ample extent, our right to that Louisiana cannot be pushed to the Pacific Ocean, be reinstated, and to be the party in possession while treatit may be answered that she may be pushed at least as ing of the title." far as Canada can be. The British push their Canadian 2. That Great Britain now has the possession, is a fact title indefinitely to the West; Louisiana can go as far. of historical notoriety. The settlement of Astoria, No American statesman would rest a title to the North-founded by American citizens, and named after an Amewest coast upon the naked purchase of Louisiana; but rican, has been retained ever since the war, converted he would present it as a set-off to any British claim into a military post, and its name changed into the royal founded upon the protrusion of Canada into the valley British appellation of Fort George. There, British canof the Columbia. The discoveries of Lewis and Clark on are mounted, the British flag flies, and the medals were strictly national. They were officers in the ser- of George the Fourth are distributed to the chiefs and vice of the United States. They wore its commission, warriors of the surrounding tribes. Five other posts bore its flag, marched at the head of its soldiers, and did are established at proper distances between the sea and all their acts in the name of their country. They fol- the mountains, so as to form a complete chain, from sea lowed the Columbia from its source to its mouth, esta- to sea, along the course of the Columbia, to Saskatchiblished friendly relations with numerous Indian tribes, wine and the St. Lawrence. A cordon of posts, three took formal possession of the whole country, and be- thousand miles in length, is stretched along our flank, stowed American names, badges of sovereignty, upon for a purpose which every citizen, and every Indian of every considerable stream and mountain. In 1811, a the West, well understands, and to counteract which body of American citizens, sixty or eighty in number, no effort is made by the American Government. crossed the continent from St. Louis to the mouth of the Columbia river is suffered to be occupied, in its whole Columbia, met another party which had come round by extent, by British arms. The mock ceremony of deliv. sea, and founded the establishment of Astoria. By thisering Astoria to Mr. Prevost, in 1818, deceives nobody.

The

VOL. 1.-45

Senate.]

Occupation of the Oregon River.

[MARCH 1, 1825.

The facts are, that a British sloop of war touched at Lima, in the Fall of 1818, took up Mr. Prevost, carried him to Astoria, (Fort George,) on the 1st day of October, and brought him away on the 6th. While there, Mr. Prevost, under the authority of the American Government, signed a receipt for the delivery of Fort George, and accepted a remonstrance from the British against the delivery, "until the final decision of the right of sovereign-tain grants the same privileges to the United States for ty between the two Governments." The possession of the fort was not changed, nor intended to be changed, by any act done by Mr. Prevost. He could not man the fort himself, and had neither soldier nor sailor to do it for him. The ceremony of lowering the British flag, and of hoisting the American, was a piece of form, arranged beforehand, for the purpose of satisfying the words of the Ghent treaty, by a nominal restitution, while the post itself remained with the English, in the same manner as if Mr. Prevost had remained at Lima. No attempt has since been made by the American Government to realize the possession, and Fort George, with the whole country drained by the Columbia, remains to this day in the hands of the British. The mouth of that river has become a frequented post in their hands. All the goods for the region West of the Rocky Mountains, are imported there, free of duty; and all the furs taken in that extensive country, including the Rocky Mountains, are thence exported to the great fur markets of China and Japan.

3. That Great Britain resists the possession of the United States, is a fact of which our public documents furnish the proof.

As early as July, 1815, the Government of the United States turned its attention to the re-occupation of the Columbia. Claiming its restitution under the first article of the Ghent treaty, the Secretary of State, Mr. Monroe, conforming to the usages of civilized nations, requested from the British Charge des Affaires, at Washington Mr. Baker, a letter of instructions for the delivery. Mr. Baker declined to give the letter, upon the ground that he had no orders from his Government to do so. In 1817, the British ambassador, Mr. Bagot, made it a subject of complaint and remonstrance that the Government of the United States should propose to re-occupy that country, and treated the proposition as an invasion of the rights and interest of his Britannic Majesty. He denied our right to be restored under the terms of the Ghent treaty, taking a distinction, where there existed no difference, between the case of a post captured by a superior force, and of a post evacuated by an inferior force, at the approach of a superior one. The latter of these cases he alleged to be that of As

toria.

In 1821, when the occupation of the Columbia was first presented to the consideration of Congress, the British Minister at Washington, Mr. Canning, twice called upon the Secretary of State, Mr. Adams, with a view to arrest the progress of that measure. He went so far as to say, that such occupation would conflict with his Majesty's claims in that quarter. Contemporaneously with this interference and threat, was the appearance of numerous essays in the National Intelligencer, evidently from the pens of persons in the employment of England and Russia, attacking and ridiculing all the claims of the United States to the Northwest coast of America. The essays of anonymous newspaper writers might be deemed unworthy of notice in this chamber, but they derive importance from the fact of the repetition of their contents in the halls of Congress. Yes, Mr. President, these essays have become a magazine, from which gentlemen borrow arms for attacking the rights and interests of their own country; nor is there a weapon of argument or ridicule which has been employed throughout this debate, which cannot be traced to that source.

4. That the party in possession, in the year 1828, will have the right of possession until the question of title shall be decided by arms or negotiation, is a consequence

[ocr errors]

resulting from the terms of the third article of the London convention of 1818. [Here Mr. B. read the article, and continued.] It is a vulgar error, Mr. President, to suppose that, by this convention, the United States granted to British subjects the rights of trade and passage upon the Columbia river, for the period of ten years. It would be just as correct to say, that Great Bri the same period. The fact is, that neither grants a pri vilege, and neither accepts one. The title of each is placed upon a footing of perfect equality. Each has the right of trade and entry, by virtue of his own claim to sovereignty; each agrees to tolerate the trade and entry of the other for ten years. Neither surrenders any part of his claim, and the treaty is not to be construed to the disadvantage of the title of either. It results from these stipulations, that the party in possession at the expira tion of the ten years, will have the right of possession until the question of title shall be decided. It requires no Vattel to tell us this. The principle is the same in national and municipal law. When the title is disputed, the party in possession of the disputed property, has a right to hold it until the question of title shall be decid ed-by a court of justice, when the dispute is between individuals; by arms, or negotiations, when it is between nations. In the case before the Senate, the United States have a right of possession as the true owners of the country; another right under the Ghent treaty: and a further right of entry, under the terms of this con vention. But the last right is a limited privilege, which has but two and a half years to run. If it is suffered to expire, it will require no spirit of divination to foresee the result. All right of entry or possession will then be denied. Our right as owners will be said to be limited in the convention, which had expired; our right under the Ghent treaty will be said to have been satisfied by the idle ceremony, rather worse than useless, in which Mr Prevost was an actor; and having the possession of the river, a fleet in its mouth, batteries upon its shores, a line of posts to Canada, and the command of 140,000 Indians, Great Britain may safely take the attitude of defiance, and trust to her arms for the defence of her posi tion. That she will have the disposition to do so, can be doubted by no one who has observed the course of her policy with respect to this river, the increasing boldness of her pretensions, and the "reluctance" with which she agreed to such a modification of the third article of the convention of 1818, as would leave that country open, " for a limited time," to the citizens of the United States, as well as to the subjects of Great Britain.-Letter of Messrs. Gallatin and Rush, Oct. 20, 1818.

Mr. B. now took up the bill, and complained of the unfair manner in which it had been opposed. He call ed it unfair, because gentlemen had stated it to be what it was not, and then made war upon the phantoms of their own imaginations. The bill proposed nothing more than the military occupation of the country, in ex ecution of the Ghent treaty. It proposed to put money and troops at the disposition of the President, to enable him to receive the country, and to retain it. The President was bound to execute the treaties of the Union, and he could not go in person, like Mr. John Baptist Prevost, to receive the possession of the Oregon with his own naked hands. Yet gentlemen had represented the bill as a proposition to found a colony, and to establish territory, and then launched forth into all the common. place declamation against colonies and territories. Mr. B. would not follow them into that field of idle debate: he would stick to the proposition contained in the bill. He would call for the complete execution of the Ghent treaty. He would demand if that part alone which was made for the benefit of the West, was to remain forever without execution? If a second edition of the retention of the Northwestern posts was to be struck off for the benefit of the Western people? A peculiar fatality seemed to attend upon the execution of the treaties

« ForrigeFortsett »