London, with the exception of one or two important oversights, was entirely creditable to his diplomatic capacity; Mr. Gallatin exhibited throughout, as was to be expected, a profound and thorough acquaintance with the whole subject; and Mr. Adams, whose position at different times brought him into contact with the question, gave evidence, in this connection also, of that extended general knowledge-especially of historical matters for which he is distinguished. We cannot, indeed, at the risk of appearing invidious; disguise our conviction, that the American Plenipotentiaries displayed a better understanding of the subject than the English Commissioners appeared to possess. We refer especially to Messrs. Huskisson and Addington, who manifested an ignorance on historical points-unless they purposely misstated them-and a fertility of extravagant assumption and illogical reasoning quite remarkable. Our observation will be substantiated by the fact, that many of their statements and positions have been significantly abandoned by the present able minister, Mr. Packenham. But the ample expositions of the question at that time set forth, though they have been made the basis of all late investigations and argument, were never familiar to the public. The territory in dispute appeared, at that period, so far off, and the idea of vast regions of barrenness intervening, on both sides of the Rocky Mountains-thus seemingly shutting it away forever from the cultivation of the States--was so generally disseminated, that the community for many years felt no interest in the matter, and the documents relating to it were never collected so as to have a united weight, till the publication of Mr. Greenhow's volume. How extensively that work was bought and read (for buying by no means implies reading a book, else it might even be supposed that Mr. Ingersoll's History of the Late War is being perused to some extent) we cannot say, but its circulation could not have been adequate to familiarizing the public with the full merits of the controversy, as the Press gave but few and unconnected abstracts of the valuable materials it contained. Some Congressional speeches since have entered lucidly into parts of the subject-but not fully enough to settle the convictions of the country. Others, uninformed, loud-mouthed-the louder, indeed, the less informed-were made expressly for political effect. Mr. Polk,* in his Inaugural Address, that he might come up to the measure of a premature declaration, thrust forth in advance for him by ignorant men at a partisan caucus-using assertions, not argument-put forward the whole matter, by the ears, to no end but to drag a great national question into the miserable arena of party politics, where it could not fail to be distorted, and make the Republic appear in the eyes of Europe unreasoning, undignified, headstrong and grasping. Thus it happened that the late diplomatic correspondence was the There is no worse instance of the evil resulting from "scurvy politicians" using acknowledged national questions to hoist themselves into power, than was seen in the position in which Mr. Polk found himself, on assuming the responsibilities of his office. The point has been commented upon in our last number, in the article entitled "Pandora." The Baltimore Convention made haste to resolve that "our right to the whole of Oregon is clear and unquestionable;" that Oregon was to be re-occupied, as Texas was to be re-annexed, &c., &c. But to what end? Was the American title to Oregon a party question? Had the subject been mentioned at the Whig Convention? Had it in any way been compromised by Whig disaffection? No! It was a juggle, and they knew it. They seized upon it to make votes; and they made them. Mark the result! A president, carried into office by this and other scrupulous means, feels himself, at first, called upon to talk as loudly as those who placed him there had talked for him. He utters his manifesto accordingly. England regards it as a menace-a defiance, a resolution of asserting claims per fas nefasque, quo jure quaque injuria. She is, of course, angry and assumes the warlike. But our President, when he comes to practical decision on the subject, finds that he has been unequivocal too early, that the question was virtually compromised years before, that he is placed in a false and a weak position. He is forced to fling to the wind his bravado promise to exact the whole, and the partypledge which had been made for him beforehand. He offers to give up nearly half of Oregon, provided we be allowed to keep the other half! "How natural," says "Pandora," "is the inference which will be drawn, on the other side, that he had been staggered by the force of the British claim, and compelled, in conscience, to defer to it. How easy the presumption, that when a president, so situated, could begin by professing so much, justice would give still more! first consecutive and closely-reasoned the world possessed with too great a lust view of this complicated question that of territory (avaritia soli)—a feeling has fairly been spread before the public.* little appreciated by the monopolizers of It was on both sides exceedingly able, patriotism. They were willing, therefore, presenting for either country the entire to abide still by a division of claims. argument. The community were enabled to see what alone could reasonably determine their opinions-the comparative full strength of the rival claims at one survey. The effect was important. Those who, having "uttered their most sweet voices," to some effect, for the " bloodless conquest" of Texas, sought afterwards to monopolize the patriotism of the country by exclusive outcries for exclusive rights in Oregon (when, as we have shown, they did not, and could not have known the grounds of the claim), suddenly awoke one morning, like Lord Byron, surprised to "find themselves famous," as having actually been-for the first time in some years-measurably in the right. Those, on the other hand, whom many historical facts, actual joint occupancy for many years, and most of all, our repeated offers of compromise at the 49th, had naturally persuaded, that the British right down to that latitude was superior to our own, with perhaps a shadow of argument for something beyond, became, when the best pleadings of both countries were before them, convinced that our title up to the 49th, is irrefragable, with a claim, even as far as the Russian boundary, stronger than Great Britain can well establish. But they were equally convinced that England was sincere in believing herself possessed of a paramount title to a part; that, if our abstract right to the whole be perfect, it will be difficult to persuade the rest of the world that it is so-a consideration not to be disregarded by a people not careless of a good name. ; that, if we could so persuade them, the very fact of our having offered to rest satisfied with the 49th parallel would be, in their eyes, a bar to enforcing a violent claim to the whole; and that whatever might be said of the soil, British subjects have, by long occupancy, acquired in that region rights of property, at least, and trading interests, that can not be overlooked. They were also impressed with a wish that the Republic should not appear to Corresponding positions were assumed by parties in Congress. Loco-foco orators saw a productive opportunity of adding to their stock of political capital, both individual and partisan. They made haste to illuminate themselves, like automaton figures in alabaster, for the admitation of constituents. They arrogated to the Party the position of champions of the national honor, defenders of the soil. They accused the Whig Party of opposition to the wishes of the country, un-American views, subserviency to British interests. They talked boldly of War, and made no preparation; scornfully of England, as if scorn were a defence for our sea-coast and cities. They significantly hinted, that a second Federal dynasty was to be overwhelmed by the odium which should confound a second resistance to the popular war-spirit. The whole country, even the more moderate of their own ranks, saw that they were pulling these dangerous wires for no purpose but to strengthen their present ascendency, and secure it for the future:-not the 49th or the 54th parallel of latitude, but a parallel of power in '48, was the one object of their resolutions belligerent and noisy declamations. The Whigs in Congress saw quite through this game:-it is singular, indeed, that the Administration party could ever have supposed they could be led blindfolded. They had, for the most part, like the intelligent portion of the community abroad, settled it in their own minds, that the United States have superior rights in Oregon, and that these rights are to be maintained. They felt, however, all those difficulties in the case which we have stated above, and preferred, like men aware of the true foundations of a people's honor, that the Republic, abiding by its offered compromise, should seem to yield something of its abstract claims, now better understood, rather than wear before the world the imputations, which we might not be able to avoid, of inconsistency, ambition and avarice. There was no one of them who was *We are not prepared to say, that our practice of publishing the diplomatic correspondence between this and other nations, contrary to European custom, is, in general, to be commended, though we cannot but consider it, in this case, fortunate, as a complete view of this controversy was greatly needed by the public, both in this country and in Europe. There are occasions, however, when the movements of government should be kept in profound secrecy. not persuaded, that the dispute could be honorably settled without the arbitration of the cannon; and they were especially resolved that the great question of Peace or War should not be used as a political tool by their opponents-by some of them, with no intention that War should follow -by others, with an utter recklessness of results, if so they could gain their sordid ends" children playing on the hole of the asp, weaned children putting their hands on the cockatrice's den." They took their stand accordingly; and it is not too much to say, that their firm, intelligent, unimpassioned conduct, aided by the position which the Statesman of South Carolina was bold enough to assume in the face of the rank and file of his party, kept the question from being absorbed by an unscrupulous faction for their own sinister purposes. The advices from England, by the last arrival, are such as entirely to sustain them; and the country is free, we think, to rejoice that so important a controversy is placed back on the high national grounds from which it never should have been forced away. Let those who so dealt with it bear the blame. There are symptoms, indeed, that they are not pleased with the too evident prospect of peace-for peaceably, we are assured the question will finally be settled. Not that the majority of them, as we have already intimated, ever really desired or expected War. True, they have martial spirits among them-valiant editors, orators, planners of campaigns-men of a "most dire nature," and plainly born for some emergency-who appear quite ready, and did appear quite likely, to lead both their party and their country into danger. And they maintained their valor, for the purpose, to an extraordinary pitch :— "The lion shagg'd, fierce tail and fiery eye, Lasheth his sides to keep his courage high. But the greater number of the political jugglers, in whom that party have confided, by no means designed that the phantom they had so rashly conjured up, should prove the devil in earnest. They wished only to show their power, and to maintain it, by raising spectres which they alone should seem able to put down again; and they imagined that this Shape of War would be both easily scared up, and the most potent. When they see, however, the portentous shadow unexpectedly dissolve to reappear-too plainly in the assured form of Peace, they can not help feeling a "gentle regret." They have not yet gained enough by their game. They would gladly have recourse again to the terrors of their magic lantern, careless if they do not finally evoke the actual Angel of Blood, and bring the nationunfortunate in its rulers!-to "drink at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury." But we repeat our assurance, that their machinations are idle, and that the nation will again owe it, as often before, to that "moral power of the Whig Party," of which we spoke in a former number, that they are not plunged into irreparable misfortune. We have bestowed, by implication at least, emphatic commendations on the Oregon Correspondence, as having tended to enlighten public opinion in this country, by placing face to face the strongest arguments which either side can furnish; thus enabling every one to judge of preponderating claims, and to take a ground at once positive, moderate, and American. Its effect in England, we apprehend, will be found to have been still greater. The great body of the English people are absurdly ignorant of matters relating to this country. Even most of their public men, journalists and book-makers, betray a lack of knowledge on points of our history, geography, social order, that does great honor to either their self-conceit or their indifference. If we travel in England, one half of those we converse with among the masses are likely to express their wonder that, being Americans, we talk English. Mr. Alison, in his ponderous and partial history-a work as false in its spirit as in its statements-speaks twice of the "two States of Massachusetts and New England"-calls the Canadians the Tyrolese of America-asserts his doubt whether each State, "so extensive and undefined are their powers," cannot "declare peace and war;" and represents Washington as giving his casting vote, in Congress, while President of the United States. Blunders almost as unpardonable are made in Parliamentary speeches. It is not surprising, therefore, that, on a subject so far removed from them as Oregon, their want of information "from King to Cobbler," (with the exception of those who had studied it for diplomatic purposes,) was co-extensive with their prejudices-both intense. But we observe that the English papers have published the whole, or parts of the correspondence, as first put forth on this side, and we think we can see the im pression it has produced in a partial lulling of that confident tone with which they have hitherto asserted their claim down to the Columbia. The Times only attempts to answer Mr. Buchanan's last letter, with a particular effort to show that our possession of several titles, conflicting as between themselves, nullifies the validity of them all as against England. The argument, though more terse and spirited than Mr. Packenham's, is false and inconclusive. We must, indeed, be allowed, as Americans, again to declare the gratification it has afforded us to observe the superior ability manifested on the American side of the correspondence. Mr. Packenham is undoubtedly a very clever man. It may be that he has conducted the argument for his government as well as could have been done by Lord Aberdeen himself. It may be, too, that he appears to disadvantage, because of the palpable weakness of the claim which he urges. But as we read his notes and statements in their connection with those of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Buchanan, we cannot resist the conviction that an education and practice amid the conflicts of American politics, and in the intellectual gymnastics of the legal profession, is a better training for the art of diplomacy than can be found in all the occupations of British Statesmanship. This aside, however-public opinion in England, we have assured ourselves from the tone of influential journals and by private advices, has been most essentially modified. How much of this is owing to the very diplomatic idea, which has doubtless impressed itself on their statesmen and journalists, that this is an excellent opportunity to obtain from us a concession of Tariff modifications, we cannot say. In what spirit, also, such a compromise-worth more to them than the whole of Oregonshould be met by us, we will not consider at present. All of this change in sentiment that is not due to that hope, is to be placed, we think, to the account of an awakened sense of the actual preponderance of the American claim. Under their united influence, it is believed, the London Times-the dignified, unscrupulous and bitter enemy of American growth in America-put forth the leader which has been much commented upon, urging government to tender us the offer which we twice made them and they rejected, of the 49th parallel, giving England Vancouver's Island, with joint navigation of the Columbia. As this suggestion is made, it is further believed, by ministerial authority, the question of peace obviously rests with ourselves. We have thus made a historical summary of the various aspects and positions which this controversy has assumed, partly that our further remarks may be clearly understood, and partly to show how demagogues of little knowledge and less principle can pervert great national questions to party purposes. We are now brought to this important point :—that it probably rests with the present Congress to determine whether the dispute shall be settled without war. It remains to consider the way in which this can be effected, involving the nature of those rights which the British do possess on the Pacific coast, and the extent to which we ought to push our abstract claims. The Oregon question has been commonly spoken of as a question of boundary. In the proper use of terms, this is not so. The question is rather a question of title, which the parties have in vain attempted to settle by partition. The attempt to divide a territory between contending claimants involves, of course, the proposal of a boundary; and if the parties are agreed that there shall be a division, the question of the line of partition becomes the only one. But even then, the question where the division line shall run bears little resemblance to a boundary question properly so called-such as that which was so happily adjusted by the Treaty of Washington, in 1842. We notice this misnomer, because it seems to us to have been the occasion of some misapprehension on both sides of the Atlantic. Where one government has clear and undoubted jurisdiction over a given territory, and another government has clear and undoubted jurisdiction over another territory contiguous to the former, and a misunderstanding has arisen as to which range of highlands, which water course, which parallel of latitude, marks the transition from the one jurisdiction to the other-that is a question of boundary. To suppose any analogy between the present question and a question of that kind, is to misunderstand the whole matter. Our rights in Oregon-if we are to hold to the validity of the Spanish title-are as good in every part, from the Mexican boundary to the Russian, as in any part; and on the other hand the rights of Great Britain, if she has any, are equally ubiquitous. If the " 'great powers" of Europe should now come to the conclusion, unanimous ly, that the territories of the Turkish empire have been given up to barbarism long enough, and ought to be reclaimed immediately by being brought under the influence of more civilized institutions the question how to divide those territories among the great claimants-how much to give to Russia as the ancient enemy of Turkey, and how much to Britain as her ancient ally-how much to give to Austria on the score of contiguity, and how much to France out of respect to the idea that the Mediterranean is a "French lake"--would not be at all like the question of a litigated boundary between Belgium and Holland, but would be like the question now in dispute between the two great powers of the North American continent about the partition of Oregon. Our Government, then, in asserting an abstract title to the whole territory from California to the Russian boundary, is plainly right in the sense that such title is as good at any one point of the coast as at any other. The British title, on the other hand, if good for anything as a title, is as good for the whole, or for as much as that government may choose to demand, as for any part. This position brings the controversy to its true issue. What is our ground of claim? What is the British? Which of the two is better than the other? There is little occasion here to give the full details of discovery, exploration, trade and treaties, which constitute the materials of the arguments on either side. The published correspondence, with the various dissertations in reviews and papers, have made the leading facts and principles of the case familiar to the public. The names of Juan de Fuca and Heceta, of Meares and Vancouver, of Gray and Kendrick, of the Treaty of Utrecht and the Nootka Sound Convention-the principles of international law touching the rights acquired by discovery, and the distinction between those treaties which war annihilates, and those which survive the shock of arms-have become like household words wherever there is intelligence enough to read the newspapers. What we propose, then, is rather to express some general thoughts that occur to us respecting the nature of the American claim, the nature of the British rights as distinguished from it, and the manner in which the dispute is to be peaceably settled. In doing this, however, we shall have occasion to refer to some facts and arguments which have frequently before been employed. What are the grounds, first, of any positive claims on the part of the British government to Oregon, or to any definite part of it as a territory of the British empire? In our view, after giving some attention to the argument, that govern ment seems to have no claim of that sort-none, we mean, that is warranted by the received law of nations. The only.sources from which such a title can originate, according to that law as laid down on all sides, are discovery, settlement or occupation, treaty, contiguity and prescription. What, then, is the source of any claim that Great Britain can set up? Is it discovery? Did the British government, or anybody under the authority and protection of that government, discover the north-west coast of America? No. Should we admit the story that Drake sailed up the coast, even to the 48th degree instead of the 43d-an assertion which the English themselves have wisely abandoned-who was Drake? An Englishman sent out by his sovereign to explore? An honest merchant, sailing for lawful purposes under the protection of the British flag? Not at all. He was a buccaneer-a mere pirate-confessed to be such by Queen Elizabeth herself. Did Britain discover the great river of the west? No. After its discovery, did she first explore it from its upper branches to its mouth, with a view to occupation? No. Facts are indisputably against her. Did she discover the great islands, straits and harbors of the North-western Archipelago? No. The old Greek pilot in the Spanish service, Juan de Fuca, has left his name there, from the year 1592, as a perpetual testimony against the British claim of discovery; and if his narrative be rejected as a fabrication--an assertion for which there is not good ground—yet the explorations and discoveries along those coasts and islands, by Perez, Heceta and Bodega, sent out by the Spanish government for that purpose several years before the English appeared in the Pacific Ocean at all, are conclusive against the pretension. The only original discovery of any kind made by her subjects, on the coast or inland, island or river-of a nature to confer title according to received rules-is that of Fraser's |