River, which does not cross the 49th parallel, but enters the sea a few miles above; and the claim by this discovery must evidently be subject to the Spanish title by discovery and exploration of the coasts, straits and islands subtending its course in the same latitudes-if that title is found to be valid.

But discovery, not followed by actual Occupation, constitutes no title. Has Great Britain, then, acquired a title by occupation? Certainly not. From the days of De Fuca, Perez and Bodega to this hour, she has had no such occupation there as constitutes a title to the sovereignty or even to the soil. Before the Nootka Treaty (1790) her navigators had hardly had time for the absurdity of taking possession, in the name of King George, of a country already discovered by another nation-though they were enabled to commit the greater absurdity of doing it after that treaty was ratified, which expressly "left the sovereignty" of the whole region "in abeyance." As to the establishments of the Hudson's Bay Company, scattered through Oregon, they are mere stations for traders and hunters, and by the force of a solemn treaty-the very terms of the Nootka Convention itself-are precluded from acquiring any title to exclusive possession by any length of occupancy. Those establishments are no more an occupation of Oregon than the East India Company's factories at Canton, before the late war there, were an occupation of China. The British flag flying on one of the forts or trading-houses of the Hudson's Bay Company, is no more an occupation of the country in the sense in which occupation gives title, than the same flag flying over a merchantman or a whaler in the harbor of Honolulu is an occupation of the Sandwich Islands-even less than the same flag flying over the British consulate at Smyrna is an occupation of Asia Minor. The only possible way in which such occupancy could even confirm, much less create, a title to territory, would be by its following immediately on original discovery. But the original discovery belonged to another nation.

Has Great Britain, then, acquired a title to the possession or sovereignty of Oregon, or of any part of it, by treaty?

Certainly her treaties with the United States have neither given nor recognized any such title, but, on the contrary, they have made it impossible for her, during their continuance, to acquire either the sovereignty or the soil of Oregon, or of any part of it. Her treaty with Spain in 1790 (the Nootka Convention), equally shuts the door against her; and, what is worse, it shuts the door forever, or till that convention be abrogated by something more absolute; for the express terms of the treaty are, that "the sovereignty," that is, the title, "SHALL BE IN ABEYANCE." It concedes to her, therefore, no sovereignty in Oregon, and no possession of the soil-gives her no slice out of that Spanish-American empire, which Spain considered in those days as extending to Prince William's Sound; it only relaxes, in relation to the northwest coast, the rigor of that exclusive system by which Spain had attempted to prevent all access of foreigners to her American possessions; it simply allows to British subjects the privileges which British subjects have enjoyed there ever since the privilege of trading and fishing on the coast, and of making "settlements" there (not colonies)-under certain restrictions. That the Nootka Sound Convention was considered by the parties at the time as annexing any part of North-western America to the dominions of the British crown, cannot be pretended. We wonder that British plenipotentiaries have ever suffered themselves to make the pretence.

Can a title, then, be awarded to Great Britain on the ground of contiguity? Contiguity to what? To Hong Kong? to the coast of Bengal? to New South Wales? or to the Falkland Islands? In respect to facilites of communication and mutual dependence, the territory in question is nearer to almost any part of the British empire than to Canada, or the territory drained by the streams that empty into Hudson's Bay. The only contiguity she can urge, that of territory conceded to her (by the treaty of London, 1818) above the 49th parallel, and lying along the base of the Rocky Mountains-a boundary, itself utterly uninhabited, and full two thousand miles from any settlement in Canada. This

and thus, in England's eyes, must have appeared possessed of all claims, except such as she had to assert. Now we ask, if having, ourselves, established a claim similar to her own, and having bought besides a right of Spain which England could not and did not entirely disregard this purchase of the Spanish title did not add something-we will not now say the full value of what Spain might have thought it worth, or we, after her, have thought it worth—but something, at least, to the sufficiency of our former title. But one answer can be given. In the eyes of England and the world, our claim was worth the more for acquiring the Spanish right. It afforded another ground-a consideration-for urging the propriety, the reasonableness, of our having a larger part of Oregon. So, also, if our title through Spain be preferred first, then our right by prior discovery and occupation (prior as regards Great Britain) is unquestionably an additional "consideration." It is supplemental, compensative: it strengthens the Spanish title.

"But you are now arguing," it is replied, "on the ground of the Nootka Convention, admitting that England had a right to settle herself in Oregon-in other words that the Spanish title was defective in so far as it could not cover the entire coast-a point which Mr. Buchanan never allows." Nor do we allow it; but, supposing it, we have made out one case, at least, where both claims can be presented at once against England, without realizing the Kilkenny allegory-whereas The Times, following Mr. Packenham, says distinctly, "it cannot rest on both," but both put forward "are mutually destructive." But assuming, on our part, the entire and exclusive validity of the Spanish title, so that not only England's explorations and occupation, but our own, were "encroachments," we still hold it most evident, that, inasmuch as we have since acquired that title, the explorations and occupancy we had previously instituted must, in the eyes of other nations, be of a nature both to justify themselves, and to fortify our claim, in case that purchased title be assailed by a third party.

Let the case be again clearly stated. England says:-"You assert the exclusive validity of your claim through Spain. We deny and assail it. You then fall back on your discovery of the Columbia and other explorations to support and help out that claim. This you cannot do; for,

if you maintain the Spanish title as inviolable, a character of encroachment and violation attaches [we use the words of Mr. Packenham] to every act which the United States appealed to in the negotiation of 1818, as giving them a claim to territory on the North-west Coast." The "acts" referred to were the occupation of the mouth of the Columbia, the expedition of Lewis and Clark, sent out by President Jefferson, in 1805, to explore the branches of the Columbia; the "claim advanced after the late war for the restitution of Astoria, the provisions of joint occupation of Oregon, entered into by the United States with Great Britain, in 1818," and, above all, "the proposal actually made on the part of the United States, the same year, for a partition of that territory."

Now, it will be found on inquiry, that all these acts on the part of our government, were entirely natural and proper, and, in our opinion, eminently wise. Nor is any one of them chargeable with the slightest shadow of injustice towards Spain. In the first place, the Trading Settlement, established at the mouth of the Columbia by Astor, was at the time the act of a private individual, and could not involve the honor of the nation with Spain. Afterwards, it was acknowledged and assumed by the United States, by the demand for its restitution after the War, and by accomplishing that demand through an authorized Government Officer.

Then, and not till then, could Spain have complained of our government, though she might have complained to it, as it was the act of one of our citizens. "But the Expedition of Lewis and Clark was sent out by Jefferson, then President, in 1805, fourteen years before Spain transferred her claim to the United States." This is an important point, and demands a clear statement.

Louisiana had been originally held by France-was ceded by her to Spain in 1762-retroceded to France in 1800, and purchased of her by the United States in 1803. How far the immense and undefined territory, going by that name, extended is not, and never has been, well understood. France did not know, when she possessed it-except that it stretched from tropical foliage to a region of sixmonth snows,-and embraced more than she had explored or could ever Spain did not know, when she had itexcept that it must join some way her dominions on the Pacific; but how far it was to the Pacific, she was not aware.

use.

and thus, in England's eyes, must have appeared possessed of all claims, except such as she had to assert. Now we ask, if-having, ourselves, established a claim similar to her own, and having bought besides a right of Spain which England could not and did not entirely disregard this purchase of the Spanish title did not add something-we will not now say the full value of what Spain might have thought it worth, or we, after her, have thought it worth-but something, at least, to the sufficiency of our former title. But one answer can be given. In the eyes of England and the world, our claim was worth the more for acquiring the Spanish right. It afforded another ground-a consideration-for urging the propriety, the reasonableness, of our having a larger part of Oregon. So, also, if our title through Spain be preferred first, then our right by prior discovery and occupation (prior as regards Great Britain) is unquestionably an additional "consideration." It is supplemental, compensative: it strengthens the Spanish title.

"But you are now arguing," it is replied, "on the ground of the Nootka Convention, admitting that England had a right to settle herself in Oregon-in other words that the Spanish title was defective in so far as it could not cover the entire coast-a point which Mr. Buchanan never allows." Nor do we allow it; but, supposing it, we have made out one case, at least, where both claims can be presented at once against England, without realizing the Kilkenny allegory-whereas The Times, following Mr. Packenham, says distinctly," it cannot rest on both," but both put forward are mutually destructive." But assuming, on our part, the entire and exclusive validity of the Spanish title, so that not only England's explorations and occupation, but our own, were "encroachments," we still hold it most evident, that, inasmuch as we have since acquired that title, the explorations and occupancy we had previously instituted must, in the eyes of other nations, be of a nature both to justify themselves, and to fortify our claim, in case that purchased title be assailed by a third party.

66

Let the case be again clearly stated. England says::-" You assert the exclusive validity of your claim through Spain, We deny and assail it. You then fall back on your discovery of the Columbia and other explorations to support and help out that claim. This you cannot do; for,

if you maintain the Spanish title as inviolable, a character of encroachment and violation attaches [we use the words of Mr. Packenham] to every act which the United States appealed to in the negotiation of 1818, as giving them a claim to territory on the North-west Coast." The "acts" referred to were the occupation of the mouth of the Columbia, the expedition of Lewis and Clark, sent out by President Jefferson, in 1805, to explore the branches of the Columbia; the "claim advanced after the late war for the restitution of Astoria, the provisions of joint occupation of Oregon, entered into by the United States with Great Britain, in 1818," and, above all, "the proposal actually made on the part of the United States, the same year, for a partition of that territory."

Now, it will be found on inquiry, that all these acts on the part of our government, were entirely natural and proper, and, in our opinion, eminently wise. Nor is any one of them chargeable with the slightest shadow of injustice towards Spain. In the first place, the Trading Settlement, established at the mouth of the Columbia by Astor, was at the time the act of a private individual, and could not involve the honor of the nation with Spain. Afterwards, it was acknowledged and assumed by the United States, by the demand for its restitution after the War, and by accomplishing that demand through an authorized Government Officer. Then, and not till then, could Spain have complained of our government, though she might have complained to it, as it was the act of one of our citizens. "But the Expedition of Lewis and Clark was sent out by Jefferson, then President, in 1805, fourteen years before Spain transferred her claim to the United States." This is an important point, and demands a clear statement.

Louisiana had been originally held by France-was ceded by her to Spain in 1762-retroceded to France in 1800, and purchased of her by the United States in 1803. How far the immense and undefined territory, going by that name, extended is not, and never has been, well understood. France did not know, when she possessed it-except that it stretched from tropical foliage to a region of sixmonth snows,-and embraced more than she had explored or could ever Spain did not know, when she had it— except that it must join some way her dominions on the Pacific; but how far it was to the Pacific, she was not aware.

use.

The extent of the continent, in fact, in the northern and western direction of Louisiana was scarcely imagined. When we obtained possession of it, the same doubt remained. It was not clearly understood how far the Spanish claim at that time extended. It was known to us, that Spain had rights on the Pacific, as she had for nearly two centuries occupied the coasts of Mexico and California. Her trouble with England at Nootka Sound, and the convention between them has also come to our knowledge. But how far her later discoveries in the Northwest substantiated her ancient claim to the whole coast, our government did not understand. No question had yet arisen to produce an investigation on our part. It was thought, however, that what Spain was not entitled to, would belong to us by the Louisiana Purchase; and it was seen that England had designs on that coast, and would, if permitted to work unnoticed, gain immense advantages on our western borders. Jefferson, with the foresight of a practical Statesman, commissioned Lewis and Clarke to explore the whole of the Louisiana region, cross the Rocky Mountains, and descend the branches of the Columbia to the Pacific Ocean, thus to perfect a claim, which, if Spain should not set it aside, might be successfully held against Great Britain. The wisdom of that movement is now perceived. Equally so is its propriety. If, indeed, our Government had planned it with full knowledge at the time, that Spain's title to all that region was complete, or with a determination to establish and hold a claim in the face of that title-we, for one, would not hesitate to say, that it would have been the worst of stains on our national honor. But Great Britain cannot show that it was so projected; and those who have studied the circumstances of the early years of our Government know that it was not.

As to the demand we made for the restitution of Astoria, the arrangement we entered into with England for the joint occupancy with Oregon, and the proposition we made her to have the boundary of the 49th parallel run on over the mountains down to the Pacific -all of which, as taking place in 1818, before we acquired the Spanish title, are alleged as proofs of our utter disregard of

that title at the time-it is sufficient to say, that our statesmen had for many years perceived that the ancient power of Spain on the Continent was breaking fast, and that some other nation must soon become possessed of the unoccupied wilds of her dominions; that we had begun, in consequence, to negotiate with her in 1815, nearly three years before, for the acquisition of that very title; that when we were making those propositions to Great Britain, that negotiation was expected daily to be brought to a successful close; and that it was in fact terminated only four months afterwards with the cession to us of all her claim to the Pacific coast, from California northward. Let it be remembered, too, that through all that negotiation with England, the United States "treated the Spanish title with respect," not asserting that they had a perfect right to Oregon, but that their claim was good as against Great Britain.

We think, then, it is conclusively proved, that no diplomatic ingenuity can make our two claims when put forward together against a third party, appear not mutually compensative and confirmative, (in case either needed to be strengthened,) rather than "mutually destructive"-and that our rights in Oregon may be firmly and honorably reposed on both at once.

We believe, however, the argument would have been more simply and securely conducted in another way. It was not necessary or well to advance both titles at the same time. Our claim through Spain is held by Mr. Buchanan, to cover the entire territory in dispute. Our claim, in right of our own discoveries, is held to be impregnable for a part. Manifestly the latter could not be necessary to the former, should that prove to be valid; and, the former swept away, the latter must plainly stand on its own merits.* The broader claim should, therefore, have been first presented. That failing, we should have been left at entire liberty to fall back upon the other in all its strength, supported by considerations arising from the Louisiana Purchase and the principle of contiguity.

For England is obliged first of all to prove the invalidity of the original Spanish claim. It is totally impossible for her to gain anything of title by relying on the