"Thence, adopting the line traced on the maps by the commissioners, through the river St. Mary and Lake Superior, to a point north of Ile Royale in said lake, one hundred yards to the north and east of Ile Chapeau, which last mentioned island lies near the northeastern point of le Royale, where the line marked by the commissioners terminates; and from the last-mentioned point; southwesterly, through the middle of the sound between Ile Royale and the northwestern mainland, to the mouth of Pigeon river, and up the said river, to and through the north and south Fowl lakes, to the lakes of the height of land between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods; thence, along the water communication to Lake Saisaginaga, and through that lake; thence, to and through Cypress Lake, Lac du Bois Blanc, Lac la Croix, Little Vermillion Lake, and Lake Namecan, and through the several smaller lakes, straits, or streams, connecting the lakes here mentioned, to that point in Lac la Pluie, or Rainy Lake, at the Chaudière falls, from which the commissioners traced the line to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods; thence along the said line, to the said most northwestern point, being in latitude 49 degrees 23 minutes 55 seconds north, and in longitude 95 degrees 14 minutes 38 seconds west from the observatory at Greenwich; thence, according to existing treaties, due south, to its intersection with the 49th parallel of north latitude, and along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains. It being understood that at all the water communications, and all the usual portages along the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries."

Such are the words of the two treaties! and the bare reading of them, without a recurrence to maps, announces a great difference. That difference is as great, in fact, as the words would import. To understand this difference, a modern map, or some large map of the United States, should be examined: one that would show, 1st. The two parallel (nearly) lines of the Pigeon river route; 2d. The Kamanistiquia route; 3d. The junction of these on the north side of Hunter's island. These three points being seen on a map, the explanation of the whole becomes intelligible, and the difference between the lines of 1783 and 1842 apparent to every eye.

The terms of these two treaties announce a great difference in the boundaries established by each of them. The treaty of 1783 follows the water communication between the Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods: the treaty of 1842 designates a line of lakes, rivers, and portages; and concludes with making all the portages, and especially the Grand Porage on Lake Superior, free and open to the use of both parties. The treaty of 1783 contains nothing of this kind.

Admitting that the Pigeon river called for in the treaty of 1842 is the Long Lake called for in the treaty of 1783, and thus that the new line leaves Lake Superior at the right place:-admitting this, I proceed to point out the fact, that, within twenty miles of the lake, the Pigeon river divides into two branches --the southern bearing down through North and South Fowl Lakes; the other bearing almost due west, and taking the name of Arrow river. These two branches approach and diverge, passing through numerous small lakes, and forming many islands, until they reach the Height of Land, 40 miles from Lake Superior, and where the waters of that lake and those of the Lake of the Woods rise within 679 paces of each other. Passing the Height of Land, which is the dividing ridge which separates the waters of the St. Lawrence from those of Hudson Bay, the parallel routes again diverge, forming the large island cailed Hunter's, and many smaller islands, until they finally come together in Rainy Lake, whence they issue by a river as large as the Hudson, which flows into the Lake of the Woods, hence another large river flows into Lake Win

Northwestern Boundary-Mr. Benton.

nipec, whence the Missinnippi (of the Indians) now called Churchill river, flows into Hudson's Bay. These two parallel lines, from their first divergence near Lake Superior, to their final conjunction in Rainy Lake, a distance of more than 100 miles, are known by names as notorious and as distinct as any two objects in nature can be. The northern, or outer line, is called the Water Communication, because it is the most continuous water line; the southern, or inner line, is called the Portage Route, because it has numerous portages, or carrying places upon it. The former was the boundary of the United States, under the treaty of 1783: the latter was the trading route of the French when they owned Canada, and of the British from the time they conquered Canada in 1763, until they removed to the Kamanistiquia route in the year 1802. Following this southern, or inner route, upon any map on a scale to show small objects, and every landmark called for in the treaty of 1842 will be found, and will always be found to follow the most southern deflexions of every lake and river, so as to cut deepest at every possible point into the old and acknowledged territory of the United States! Look at those calls, both in the treaty and on the map. First, North and South Fowl Lakes, many miles south of Arrow river; then Lake Saisa ginaga, Cypress Lake, and Bois Blanc Lake, which carry you south of Hunter's island; then Lake La Croix, and Vermillion Lake, which keep you south of the Namecan river; then the Namecan Lake, which takes you into the extreme southern limb of Rainy Lake. These are the new calls!-all to the south! every one pursuing each lake or river to its extreme southern deflexion! and them throwing in all the portages, and Grand Portage itself, into the bargain. This is the new line; and it will be shown in the proper place, that this precise line was begged by the Northwest Company, in 1827, and refused by General Porter, (the Ghent commissioner under the 7th article,) because it would alter the boundaries of the United States. What he refused, Mr. Webster granted.

This establishes the fact of the alteration of this boundary. The further fact, that it was wrongfully altered, and to the benefit of the British, and the injury of the United States, remains to be established; and to the proof of that I now proceed.

First, I point to the map now on the Secretary's table, and which shows the boundary of the United States marked up to the northern line of the Pigeon river routes, and going north of the large island called Hunter's. This is a late map. Forty others, of different dates, might be produced; and any person, in any part of the United States, who has a large map of the Union in his possession, may see the boundary as there traced.

Next, I point to the British route opened in 1802, after the removal of the fur company from the Grand Portage, which, passing up the Kamanistiquia, and through Dog Lake, and the Thousand Lakes, arrives at the boundary of the United States on the north side of Hunter's Island, opposite its middle, and follows the Maligne river, the ac knowledged boundary of the United States, to Lac La Croix. This conjunction of the new British route with the United States boundary north of Hunter's Island, is proof, from the British themselves, that the boundary was on the north of that island, where the maps place it--and which decides the whole question; for that island is the great landmark between the two routes, which are there separated to their widest degree of divergence. The Webster line is on the south of this island; and will so be marked in every map made after this time.

Next, I refer to the eight affidavits of the gentlemen of the Northwest Fur Company, dated in 1826, all affirming that, in 1802, the company, by a unanimous decision of its managers, removed from the Grand Portage, on the south side of the estuary of Pigeon river, to Fort William, on the north side of the Kamanistiquia, for the purpose of gelling out of the limits of the United States! and that this new route brought them into the Maligne river, (north side of Hunter's Island,) which river they followed west to Lac La Croix. Thus the British came into the northern brauch of the Pigeon-river routes, and followed it west through the wicked Maligne river, because they had no right to go to the southern branch.

Next, I refer to the eight treaties which guaranty the northern of these routes as the boundary of the United States, and the sixty years' possession which we have had of that boundary. The rear

Senate.

ties referred to, are-1, that of the preliminaries of peace, signed in 1782; 2, that of the peace itself, signed in 1783; 3, Jay's treaty of 1794; 4, Mr. King's, of 1803; (rejected by the Senate;) 5, Mr. Monroe's, of 1807, (rejected by Mr. Jefferson;) 6, the Ghent treaty of 1814; 7, the convention of 1818, by Messrs. Rush and Gallatin; 8, the renewal of that convention in 1828. All these treaties-some positively, others tacitly-confirmed the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods. Wher ever the question was made, the attempt to alter these boundaries was instantly repulsed. The effort, especially of the British traders, to get back to the portage route, and to have the free and common use of our portages, and to be exempt from duties on our territory, was repulsed in every instance, except one, (Jay's treaty;) and even then, so restricted as not to be used by the British. That these eight treaties all maintained our rights west of Lake Superior, and that they have all been set at naught by the Webster treaty, is apparent from their terms and their history; and I now proceed to quote those terms, and to show that history, so far as it shall be necessary to establish my position.

1. The provisional treaty of peace, signed at Paris, November 30, 1782: Messrs. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and Henry Laurens, the commissioners on the part of the United States. This preliminary treaty thus defines the boundary from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods:

"Thence through Lake Superior, northward of the isles Royale and Philippeaux, to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake, and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the Lake of the Woods."

These are the words of the preliminary articles of peace; and these words have remained unaltered from the year 1782 to the year 1842, when they were changed by the Webster treaty.

2. The definitive treaty of peace of September 3, 1783 This treaty was signed by Adams, Franklin, and Jay; and in all that related to the boundary be tween Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods, was a transcript, word for word, of the boundary described in the preliminaries of 1782.

3. Jay's treaty of 1794. The object of this treaty, as we all know, was to settle some difficulties which had grown up in the construction, or in the execution, of the treaty of 1783. Two of these difficul ties related to the Northwest: 1. The retention of the northwestern posts by Great Britain: 2. The impracticability of the boundary calls between the Lake of the Woods and the Mississippi. The Eng. lish retained the northwestern posts in defiance of the treaty; and the call from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, being for a line due west, was impracticable, because the source of the Mississippi was south (nearly) from that lake. The posts were retained for the sake of the fur-traders, and to keep up a control over the Indians: the call for the Mississippi (regardless of the course) was adhered to by the British, for the purpose of founding upon it a claim to the navigation of that river. Mr. Jay went to London to adjust (among others) these two difficulties; and the adjustment of these questions brought out all the pretensions, in relation to boundaries and Indian trade, which the British then set up in that quarter. We will see what these pretensions were, and how they were met by Mr. Jay. Happily, there were protocols in those days; and, at the distance of half a century, we can trace the origin and progress of every proposition, rejected or not, which then engaged the attention of our negotiator. A point with the British negotiator (Lord Grenville) was, to obtain the admission of goods, duty free, from Canada, through the territories of the United States--a point which was instantly and decisively rejected by Mr. Jay. Under date of October 29, 1794, from London, he thus states the proposal, and his rejection of it:

"It was proposed that goods for the Indian trade should pass from Canada to the Indians within the United States, duty free: to this I could not consent."

Instead of acceding to this proposition, a restricted agreement for transportation of goods over the portages (where they were on the boundary) was inseried in the treaty, so little agreeable or avail able to the Northwest Company, that they had to abandon the portage route west of Lake Superior as soon as the treaty took effect. It was article 3 of the treaty, and in these words:

"And no duties shall be payable on any goods which shall merely be carried over any of the port

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

ages or carrying-places on either side, for the purpose of being immediately reimbarked and carried to some other place or places. But as, by this stipulation, it is only meant to secure to each party a free passage across the portages on each side, it is agreed that this exemption from duty shall extend only to such goods as are carried in the usual and direct road across the portage, and are not attempted to be in any manner sold or exchanged during their passage across the same; and proper regulations may be established to prevent the possibility of any frauds in this respect.”

This was the extent of Mr. Jay's concession-too restricted to be acceptable; and inapplicable, besides, to the portage route west of Lake Superior, because that route was not a boundary! The article was only applicable where the portages were on the water communications which were boundaries. The Northwest Company had no benefit from it on the portage route of Pigeon river; and, therefore, broke up soon after, and removed fifty miles north into the wilderness route ofthe Kamanistiquia. There they have wandered ever since! but the Webster treaty, by making the portage route the boundary, has put an end to their exile, brought them back to the place from which they removed forty years ago, and made the portage privileges inestimably valuable to them. They will return, under this treaty! and no higher evidence could be given of the change which it has made in the boundary. British territory will now be contiguous to our territory; and British stores, magazines, and warehouses skirt the line from which they have so long been removed.

No application was made to Mr. Jay to alter the boundary from the outer to the inner line of the Pigeon-river routes: the only thing which could be done for the traders, was to prolong the time for the surrender of the posts. This was extended two years; and the correspondence shows that the object of the extension was to enable the British fur-traders to collect their debts, and prepare for removal. The time for the surrender of the posts expired in 1796; the company, unwilling to quit the Grand Portage till almost driven away, awaited the threatened approach of troops from Mackinaw, and only evacuated their position in 1802.

4. Mr. Rufus King's treaty of 1803. This was a treaty (though rejected by the Senate) of the highest importance, as testimony, in the case. The settlement of the boundary in the Northwest, from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, was one of the objects of Mr. King's negotiation. He was consequently employed on a boundary question, and a boundary west of Lake Superior; and that, at the identical moment that the Northwest Company were breaking up from the fine position of the Grand Portage, abandoning the portage route, and going 50 miles north to explore, in the wilderness, a new route incomparably worse. That was the time to complain, if ever! That was the time to claim the portage route as the true one; or to ask for an alteration from the northern to the southern route! They did no such thing-neither the one nor the other. The treaty is silent on the whole subject--the correspondence also! So that, in this critical and opportune moment, the suffering company never even pretend to utter a com. plaint! They did not even ask for the use of portages and exemption from duties!

5. Mr. Monroe's treaty of 1807. This is almost as important as that of Mr. King. It was soon after the removal of the company, and while the injury to them, if any had been done, was still fresh and recent. It was still a favorable time for them to complain, if wrong had been done themif duties had been illegally threatened, or a right boundary unwillingly surrendered. It was still in time for them to complain. But no; not a word. The treaty and the protocols are wholly silent upon the subject; and this silence is an emphatic declaration that the Grand Portage, and the whole portage route to Rainy Lake, then belonged to the United States, and that the British traders were justly excluded from them.

6. The Ghent treaty of 1814. It was at the negotiation of this treaty that the British first suggested a proposal for altering the boundary between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods. The American ministers heard the suggestion with incredulity, and supposed it to be a mistake, and that it was the boundary between the Lake of the Woods and the Mississippi which was intended; but the British ministers repeated their suggestion, coupled

Northwestern Boundary-Mr. Benton.

with the old demand for the free navigation of the Mississippi, and the new one for an alteration of the boundary between Quebec and Halifax. All these demands the American ministers (Messrs. J. Q. Adams, J. A. Bayard, H. Clay, Jonathan Russell, and Albert Gallatin) unanimously and instantly rejected. The protocols and correspondence show these proceedings on these points:

BRITISH PROPOSITIONS.

"The boundary line west of Lake Superior, and thence to the Mississippi, to be revised; and the treaty-right of Great Britain to the navigation of the Mississippi to be continued. When asked whether they did not mean the line from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, the British commissioners repeated that they meant the line from Lake Superior to that river.

"A direct communication from Halifax and the province of New Brunswick to Quebec, to be secured to Great Britain. In answer to our question, In what manner that was to be effected? we were told that it must be done by a cession to Great Britain of that portion of the district of Maine, in the State of Massachusetts, which intervenes between New Brunswick and Quebec, and prevents that direct communication.

"There will then remain for discussion the arrangement of the Northwestern boundary between Lake Superior and the Mississippi, the free navigation of that river, and such a variation of the line of frontier as may secure a direct communication between Quebec and Halifax.

AMERICAN ANSWER.

"The undersigned further perceive that, under the alleged purpose of opening a direct communication between two of the British provinces in America, the British Government require a cession of territory forming a part of one of the States of the American Union; and that they propose, without purpose specifically alleged, to draw the boundary line westward-not from the Lake of the Woods, as it now is, but from Lake Superior. It must be perfectly immaterial to the United States whether the object of the British Government, in demanding the dismemberment of the United States, is to acquire territory as such, or for purposes less liable, in the eyes of the world, to be ascribed to the desire of ag grandizement. Whatever the motive may be, and with whatever consistency views of conquest may be disclaimed, while demanding for herself or the Indians a cession of territory more extensive than the whole island of Great Britain, the duty marked out for the undersigned is the same. They have no authority to cede any part of the territory of the United States; and to no stipulation to that effect will they subscribe."

These were the British demands, and the American answers, at Ghent! and mark them well. The British propositions are put forth as matters of favor, and not of right; and the gentlest language is used to veil their pretensions. A revision of the line from Lake Superior-a rariation of the line between Quebec and Halifax-a cession of territory for the benefit of Great Britain in the Northeast, or of her Indian allies in the Northwest. This is the form of her request. No error in either existing line suggested! No right pretended! Favors only requested for herself and her Indians! and these favors instantly rejected by the unanimous voice of the five American commissioners. Who would have believed, at that time, that what was then asked as favors, should afterwards be demanded as rights? and what was then rejected by five American commissioners, should, forty years af terwards, be granted by one Secretary negotiator? The Ghent commissioners refused either to revise the boundary beyond Lake Superior, or to vary the line between Quebec and Halifax: and they refused both for the same reason-that they could not dismember the United States, or cede away any part of its territory!

The time of these requests deserves to be marked: it shows the spirit in which they originated, and that both were-what our Secretary-negotiator prop. erly characterized one of them to be-the progeny of the late war! The war had shown the value of a direct communication through Maine from Halifax to Quebec; and, therefore, they asked for a grazi of that direct cominunication, to facilitate or opera tions against us in future ware The same war had also shown the power and efficiency of the Northwest Company in directing the fudians against us, and, therefore, they sought to increase the ad vantages of this company in the great seat of their empire west of Lake Superior, in order to make

Senate.

them still more efficient and still more powerful against us in future wars. This was the origin of the two requests at Ghent: and the five American commissioners then there, having American hearts in their bosoms, instantly and utterly rejected both propositions, and in the same words. They declared that they would subscribe to no such propositions: and there ended the attempt either to revise the Lake Superior line, or to vary the Maine boundary at Ghent.

Instead of revision or variation-instead of cession or dismemberment-articles were agreed upon for running and marking the true boundary, according to the terms of the treaty of peace of 1783. Messrs. Adams, Clay, Bayard, Russell, and Gallatin, with true American feeling, adhered to the sacred revolutionary boundaries traced by the venerable hands of Franklin, John Adams, and Jay. They adhered to these boundaries, and adopted measures to ascertain and perpetuate them. Leaving out all that relates to Maine, I quote the article (the 7th of the treaty) for the purpose of showing what they did in relation to the Lake Superior boundary, now the subject of controversy before the Senate. It is in these words:

"It is further agreed, that the said two lastmenioned commissioners, after they shall have executed the duties assigned to them in the preceding article, shall be, and they are hereby, authorized, upon their oaths, impartially to fix and determine, according to the true intent of the said treaty of peace of 1783, that part of the boundary, between the dominions of the two powers, which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, to decide to which of the two parties the several islands lying in the lakes, water communications, and rivers, forming the said boundary, do respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace of 1783; and to cause such parts of the said boundary as required it to be surveyed and marked," (with reference to a friendly sovereign in case of difference of opinion, as in the case of the Maine boundary.)

This was the end of the attempt to revise the Lake-Superior boundary at Ghent. The American commissioners unanimously refused the revision; and the British commissioners agreed to an article to have the treaty of '83 carried into effect according to its true intent. For this purpose, commissioners, under oath, were to examine the lo calities, set apart the islands in the water communications to the parties to which they belonged, and to mark the boundary where necessary. The 7th article of the treaty contained this agreement; and under it, Gen. Porter, on the part of the United States, and Mr. Barclay, on the part of Great Britain, were appointed commissioners. They were employed on this part of the line, at different periods, from the year 1824 to 1827; and now the whole secret came out, which had been concealed from our commissioners at Ghent. When asking for a revision of the Lake-Superior and Lake-of the-Woods boundary, the British commissioners kept their fur-traders out of view, and put forward the Indians as the people for whose benefit an alteration of the line was wanted. No sooner has the board met, under the Ghent treaty, to act upon this part of the line, than the Indians are dropped! -the true parties, and the true object, appear!-and this true party is the Northwest Fur Company; and the true object is the return of this company from the wilderness of the Kamanistiquia to the Grand-Portage route within the United States, and to be exempt from duties when so returned!

It was now that propositions for altering the boundary were made by McGillivray, the head of the fur traders--now, that he pleaded for the Southern portage route--now, that he begged in vain for the identical boundary which the Webster treaty has granted; and it was at that time that all the affidavits were taken to show that the portage route was the old route--that the British had practised it before they went to the Kamanistiquia; and it was now that the absurd pretension to the St. Louis river as a boundary was brought forward, in order to be surrendered as a compromise for that southern portage route which commanded all their affections. It was at that time, in fact, that the attempt was made to substitute the old trading route for the water communication--the very attempt which the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. CHOATE] is now ma king, and for which he is using their affidavits ?

27TH CONG....SD SESS.

The reports of the commissioners to their respective Governments prove all this, and show that General Porter was as decisive in refusing, as the traders were pertinacious in demanding, the alteration of the boundary, and a return of the Fur Company to the trading route which they had lost by the treaty of 1783, enforced by the treaty of Mr. Jay. Document No. 451, of the executive papers of 183738, proves all this, and shows that the British furtraders were the real party which appeared before the commissioners under the 7th article of the Ghent treaty; that to get back to the Grand Portage, and to be exempt from duties, was their open object; and that, to effect this, they used all the arguments there, which the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. CHOATE] has here repeated; and without effect then, whatever influence they may have now. Mr. William McGillivray, the head of the company, was the principal organ of these traders; and had candor enough to show, from the beginning, that the pretension to the St. Louis river as a boundary was a mere manœuvre to get a compromise for the portage route, exemption from duties, and the free and common use of all our portages. Hear him in his letters and affidavits before the Ghent commissioners: I quote from his letter of Sept. 4, 1824, to Mr. Hale, the British agent before the Ghent commissioners:

"The surveys made of the Lake Superior last summer, and the previous examination of its coast by Mr. Thompson and others, show sufficiently that no inlet (to deserve the name) is to be found on its northern shore. Opposite to the west end of isle Royale (or isle Minong, as it is generally called) is a small inlet, or bay, into which falls the Riviere aur Tourtres [Pigeon, or Dve river,] which is navigable for about half a mile, when you come to the rapids. About nine or ten miles westward of this river is the Grand Portage, a carrying-place near three leagues in length; at the north end of which you again find the Riviere aux Tourtres; this river, or, rather, a chain of portages and rapids, is followed up to its source-perhaps in all forty miles-when you come to the height of land dividing the waters which fall into Lake Superior from those falling ultimately into Hudson's Bay, through the Lake of the Woods and Lake Winnipec. At first, these waters are so trifling and shallow as not to have sufficient depth or width to pass a canoe of twenty-five feet with any loading; it, however, soon increases by the addition of several other small streams, and forms, by the time it falls in Lac La Pluie, a river of con siderable magnitude; but the route of the voyageur from the height of land is impeded by many carrying places and rapids, which connect the little lakes into which it frequently widens its course. These lakes are, in succession, (going into the interior,) 1st, Susiganiga; 2d, Lac des Bois Blanc; 3d, Lac Croche; 4th, Lac La Croix; and 5th, Namecan Lake; then Lac La Pluie. But these lakes are very distant from each other, though connected by rapids and carrying places, except the two last mentioned, which are only separated by one carrying place of no great length. How this route between Lake Superior and Lac La Pluie could ever be called the Long Lake, I cannot conceive; for it is made up of shallow and narrow small rivers and rapids without number, and thirty-six carrying places, together with the lakes above mentioned, with many others not worthy of a name.

"By this route, and this route only, was the trade to the northwest country carried on by the French while in posses. sion of Canada, and from the conquest until the year 1803 by the English traders; when the difficulties and expense attend ing the transportation of goods from Lake Superior, by way of the Grand Portage, to Lac La Pluie, became so great that the Northwest Company removed the general depot to Kamanis. tiquia, since called Fort William, stationed about fifty miles eastward of the Grand Portage. The whole length of the carrying places from Lake Superior to Lac La Pluie, by this route, (portage,) is twenty-seven miles; which is less, by five or six, than the other, (Kamanistiquia.)"

"If the route by the river St. Louis, or Fond du Lac, could be established as the boundary, it would be gaining a great extent of country. The distance computed from the Grand Portage to Fond du Lac is eighty leagues. Such an arrange ment, however, cannot be hoped for; although it may be stated as one of the routes connecting Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods. To the new route from Fort William they (the Americans) have no pretensions whatever, as it was never prac tised by the French, nor by the English traders until 1803; and one reason for the Northwest Company's abandoning the Grand Portage at the time, (which was done at a great sacrifice,) was a fear that the collector of the customs at Michilimackinac would send officers to raise duties on our goods. This had been threatened, and I have no doubt would have been attempted had ice remained much longer at the Grand Portage. As to whether the Riviere aur Tourtres, already mentioned, from its debouche into the lake, or the road in the Grand Portage until it strikes the said river, (which is really the ancient route, as the river to this point is altogether impracticable,) is per haps the only question; and the space of country to be gain. ed or lost by either party is of little or no consequence, as it is a mountainous, steriltract; but, by making the river the boundary from the lake, there is no means of getting to the north end of the Grand Portage, (the point of embarcation for canoes;) it would, therefore, be excluding British subjects from going into the interior by that route; whereas, by ma king it through the Grand Portage to the same point of embarcation, it leaves the road open to both parties. This route is now but little practised, as most of the canoes going in pass by the Fort William route."

Such is the letter of Mr. McGillivray, and it covers every point in the case. It presents every demand made of General Porter, and refused by *Pigeon river.

Northwestern Boundary-Mr. Benton.

him, and now granted by the Webster treaty, and defended by the Senator from Massachusetts; and it presents every argument in favor of these demands which the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. CHOATE] now presents to the Senate.

The British commissioner, Mr. Barclay, became the strenuous advocate of the traders; entering with zeal into their scheme of establishing the old trading route on the portage line as the boundary of the United States, for the purpose of getting them back to that route. Following the lead of McGillivray, he offered his first proposition of compromise in these terms.

"The British commissioner, on the other hand, offered to abandon the river St. Louis, on condition that his colleague [General Porter] would agree to accept the Grand Portage route, commencing on Lake Superior, about six miles to the southwest of the mouth of the Pigeon river; thence, up that river, and following the portage route, alternately by land and water, to Lac La Pluie, as described on the journal " General Porter objected to the portage route, and adhered to the water communication of Pigeon river in these words:

"The American commissioner proposed to relinquish the Kamanistiquia route, provided that his colleague would consent to run the line from the mouth of the Pigeon river, Riviere aux Tourtres, up the middle of that river, and thence, through the most continuous water communication, to Lac La Pluie, as described on the journal.

Mr. Barclay insisted for the portage route, as the Senator from Massachusetts now does; and General Porter shows that, in this, he was enforcing the proposition of Mr. McGillivray. He says of Mr. Barclay's proposition:

"This last is the route assumed by Mr. McGillivray; and it appears from his letters, that the only question in his mind as to the course of the boundary intended by the treaty was, whether it should follow this route, or take the water route proposed (by way of compromise) by the undersigned, commencing in and proceeding up Pigeon river, &c.; and that he has been induced to adopt the former, on the ground that it would accommodate each party with a convenient thorough. fare for their trade to the Northwest."

This is General Porter's remark upon it; and it shows that Mr. Barclay's proposition was Mr. McGillivray's, and that the question was between the WATER COMMUNICATION called for in the treaty of '78 and the PORTAGE TRADING ROUTE, practised before that treaty, and afterwards until Jay's treaty. Gen. Porter adhered to the WATER COMMUNICATION, as his oath and his duty required him to do; and thus expresses both his determination and his reason for it in his report to his Government. He says:

"Although the difference between the two commissioners was by the above propositions greatly narrowed, and, indeed, rendered of little consequence in point of territorial extent and value; yet the undersigned, considering the obligation imposed by the treaty to follow a water communication, where one could be found, as imperatire, did not feel himself at liberty to accede to the proposition of his colleague."

Such was the answer of General Porter, and no stronger or higher evidence could be given of the truth of the boundary, as established by the treaty of 1783, in the water communication, and not in the trading route. He was under oath-on the spot had access to all testimony--and adhered to the water line as the new boundary. That line had but one interruption; and that at the Height of Land, of six hundred and seventy-nine paces, as shown by Sir Alexander McKenzie: the other, has thirty-six portages, and twenty seven miles of land carriage, as just shown in the letter of Mr. McGillivray. Foiled in this proposition to begin the line at the Grand Portage, and go over land to the trading route, the British commissioner then proposes another-namely, to begin in the mouth of Pigeon river, follow it to the separation of the streams at Arrow river; then follow the southern portage route, and make all the portages free and common to the use of both parties. This was his last proposition, and is thus stated, and thus refused by General Porter:

"From hence the course is on the lake of the same name, west-southwest three miles to the Height of Land (Hauteur de Terre, of the French,) where the waters of Dove or Pigeon river (Riviere aux Tourtres, of the French,) terminate, and which is one of the sources of the great St. Lawrence in this di rection. Having carried the canoe and lading over it, six hun dred and seventy-nine paces, they embark on the lake of Hauteur de Terre, which is in the shape of a horseshoe. It is entered car the curve, and left at the extremity of the western lumb, through a very shallow channel where the canoe passes, half loaded, for thirty paces, with the current, which leads through the succeeding lakes and rivers, and disembegues by the river Nelson into Hudson's Bay."-McKenzie's History of the Fur trude, London quarto of 1801, p. 51. Geographers have done injustice to the works of nature in this quarter, in not presenting, as one river, the great stream which rises within six hundred and seventy-nine paces of the head of the St. Law. rence, and makes its way through many small, and some large lakes, into Hudson's Bay. Even before it reaches the Lake of the Woods, this river is as large as the Hudson, with fertile an well-timbered banks.

Senate.

"To a subsequent modified proposition of the British com missioner, to take a water line commencing in the mouth of Pigeon river, and thence proceeding to Rainy Lake, accompa nied by a stipulation that the Grand Fortage route should be made free and common to the use of both parties, he also felt t to be his duty to object, on the ground that such a stipula tion would involve the exercise of powers not confided to him by his commission"

This is the account given of these propositions and of their fate, by General Porter. The British commissioner (Mr. Barclay) gives the same account in his report to his own Government; with the important additional particular, that General Porter's refusals were in conformity to the advice which he had received from his own Government! Hear him:

"'And as to the proposition of Mr. Porter, to conduct the line from Lake Superior to the mouth of Pigeon river; thence, through the middle of said river, proceeding to Lake La Pluie by the most direct and continuous water communication, Mr. Barclay consented to adopt a route from Lake Superior, by the Grand Portage, to Pigeon river; and thence, by the most easy and direct route, to Lac La Pluie, provided the American commissioner would consent that the boundary should be conducted from water to water, over land, through the middle of the old and accustomed portages, in those places where-from falls, rapids, shallows, or any other obstruction-the navigation and access into the interior by water are rendered impracticable. Such a route, with all the portages, is here described by Mr. Barclay, for greater certainty;' the particulars of which route will be seen in the section last referred to.

"The commissioner of the United States having declined accepting the modification of his proposal for a compromise, as above set forth, the undersigned shortly after made another proposition to him, to the following effect: That, for the pur pose of effecting a compromise-an object so desirable to both parties-the undersigned would consent to relinquish the proposed establishment of the boundary through and over the middle of the portages, and to fix it as a water line in the course of the water communications described for that purpose by the un dersigned, provided he (the American commissioner) would unite in declaring the portages common and free to the lat ful use of both nations; the undersigned always alleging that he deemed it a part of the duty of the commissioners to preserve the communication open.

"This proposition, also, was lately declined by the com missioner of the United States, by the advice (as he stated) of his Government."

Thus the American and the British commissioners are accordant in their account of this whole affair. They show that the British fur-traders were the real parties to this question of boundary-that a compromise of this line was their policy-that the portage line, and the free and common use of the portages, was their object- and that all this was declined by General Porter, because contrary to the treaty of 1783, and because he was so advised to decline it by his own Government. That Government (or rather the administration of it) was then in the hands of gentlemen who had acted on this subject at the Ghent negotiations. Mr. John Quincy Adams was President; Mr. Clay was Secretary of State; and their advice to General Porter was in exact conformity to their answer to the British commissioners ai Ghent in 1814-namely, a peremp tory refusal to revise this line for any object whatever!

And now, is anything further wanting to show that this whole question, so tardily got up after the late war-this whole question about the boundary west of Lake Superior--was a conception of th British fur-traders, got up for their own interest, and to redeem them from the wilderness of the Kamanistiquia, and to restore them to the Grand Portage, and the whole portage route, from whic they removed in the year 1802, because that roul was on the territory of the United States? Is ther anything more wanting to prove this? If there b here it is! The express declaration of Mr. Ba clay in the concluding paragraphs of his reporti his Government. In that report he says:

"It is a fact, familiar to every person who ha investigated this point, or who is conversant wit the interests concerned in it, that the traders at extremely desirous of returning from the Kamani: tiquia route to the more southern routes; and that the are resolved to do so, if the boundary be establishe in such a manner as to authorize them."

This brings me to the end of the proceeding under the Ghent treaty, and to the end of the sixt treaty, which consecrated our title to the boundar of 1783 between Lake Superior and the Lake the Woods. But two other treaties remain to b noticed: and the notice of them shall be brief; fo they are silent upon this boundary; and this is case in which silence is as expressive as word They are:

7. The convention of 1818, in regard to the bour dary from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Wood and for the joint occupation of the Columbia. Th convention is silent on the subject of the boundar on this side of the Lake of the Woods; and th proves that the question was then at rest.

8. The continuation of that convention in 182

in which the same silence is observed, and the same inference is to be drawn.

Thus, eight treaties, and sixty years' possession, consecrated our boundary in this quarter: yet the treaty of 1842 disregarded these eight treaties, this sixty years' possession, and the uniform and unanimous voice of all negotiators, and of all adminis trations; and delivered up this important boundary to the powerful British fur traders, now more powerful than ever, whose dominion extends from ocean to ocean, and from the lakes to Hudson's Bay! whose strength is now united under a single charter-that of the Hudson Bay Company; who employ many thousand men, control innumerable Indians, and whose forts, formed into regular chains, cover all the country west and north from Lake Superior to the coast of the Pacific, and to the shores of Hudson's Bay. The treaty of 1842 restores these powerful and now united traders to their former headquarters-the seat of their ancient empire at the Grand Portage--and to the great trading route, which the treaty of 1783 gave to the United States. The treaty of 1842 does all this: and now some notice of this treaty is to be taken; and from this notice it will be seen that our Secretary-negotiator, in the Northwest as in the Northeast, became the advocate of the British; acted as the agent or solicitor of Lord Ashburton, in seeking testimony against his own country; and depreciated the value of our territory, as well as the importance of our boundaries, for the sake of having an excuse to give them away! The correspondence, meagre as it is, and destitute of protocols, still proves this; and to this proof we will now have recourse.

On the 16th day of July, 1842, Lord Ashburton, in his letter of that date, in arriving at the boundary west of Lake Superior, and reciting the differences between the British and American commissioners in relation to that boundary, proceeds to say to Mr. Webster:

"In considering the second point, it really appears of little importance to either party how the line be determined through. the wild country between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods, but it is important that some line should be fixed and known."

"I would propose that the line be taken from a point about six miles south of Pigeon river, where the Grand Portage commences on the lake, and continued along the line of said portage, alternately by land and water, to Lac la Pluie; the existing route by land and by water remaining com. mon to both parties."

To this intimation from Lord Ashburton, that some line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods should be fixed and known, it would have been sufficient for Mr. Webster to have answered, that such a line was fixed and known!-had been for sixty years!-and, for forty years of that time, had been conformed to by the British themselves! And to his proposition to take the portage route of Pigeon river for this boundary, it would have been sufficient for him to have answered, that the Northwest Company retired from that route under Jay's treaty; were still fifty miles beyond it; and that all administrations, and particularly Mr. Adams's in 1827, had refused to alter the water boundary, and permit them to return to the trading route. would have been sufficient, one would think. But not so, thought Mr. Webster. The first thing we see of him is a correspondence with Messrs. Delafield and Ferguson, (one of whom had been the agent, and the other the astronomer and surveyor, on the part of the United States, under the 7th article of the Ghent treaty,) bearing date the 20th and 25th days of July; which was two days and seven days before he answered Lord Ashburton's letter! which answer happens to bear date on the 27th day of the same July!

This

In this correspondence we find these passages in a letter from the Secretary-negotiator to Mr. Ferguson:

"What is the general nature of the country between the mouth of the Pigeon river and the Rainy Lake? Of what formation is it, and how is its surface? and will any considerable portion of its area be fit for cultivation? Are its waters active and running streams, as in other parts of the United States; or are they dead lakes, swamps, and morasses? If the latter be their

Northwestern Boundary-Mr. Benton.

general character, at what point, as you proceed westward, do the waters receive a more decided character as running streams!

"There are said to be two lines of communication, each partly by water and partly by portages, from the neighborhood of Pigeon river to the Rainy Lake: one by way of Fowl Lakes, the Saganaga Lake, and the Cypress Lake; the other by way of Arrow river and lake, then by way of Saganaga Lake, and through the river Muligne, meeting the other route at Lake la Croix, snd through the river Namecan in the Rainy Lake. Do you know any reason for attaching great preference to either of these two lines? Or do you consider it of no importance, in any point of view, which; may., be agreed to?

These are the inquiries; and they are put, as the lawyers say, leadingly-that is to say, they are so put as to lead the witnesses' minds to the answers wanted. The desired answers evidently were-first, that the country was worth nothing; secondly, that it was immaterial which route was taken for the national boundary. The object of getting these answers was evidently to have a pretext for giving up the territory between the two routes to the British, and to give them the choice of the routes--as if the British were silly enough to be struggling for forty years for sterile land, and an immaterial boundary. The gentlemen answer;. and, in all that relates to the character of the soil, are explicit as to its worthlessness: but not so as to the two routes. On this point, Mr. Delafield, the United States astronomer and surveyor under the Ghent commission, answers:

ance.

"There is, nevertheless, much interest felt by the fur traders on this subject of boundary. To them it is of much importance, as they conceive; and it is, in fact, of national importHad the British commissioner consented to proceed by the Pigeon river, which is the Long Lake of Mitchell's map, it is probable there would have been an agreement. There were several reasons for his pertinacity, and for this disagree. ment-which belong, however, to the private history of the commission, and can be stated when required."

Here the answer disappoints the inquiry. Instead of following the lead held out by the question, and answering "that it was of no importance, in any point of view, which route may be agreed to;"--instead of this, he answers that it is of much importance-of national importance--and that the furtraders take much interest in it. Thus, the answer disappoints the question; but to no purpose. Our Secretary pays no attention to his own testimony, when it makes in favor of his own country; and readily gives the British all they ask, and restores them to the route they had to relinquish under Jay's treaty. The testimony proves the importance of this boundary; but why resort to testimony? The conduct of the British is itself the strongest of all testimony, and should supersede the resort to any other. Up to the year 1802, they held on to this route in defiance of the treaty of 1783; in 1802 they removed from it, in consequence of Jay's treaty, and explored the new, difficult, dangerous, costly route of the Kamanistiquia; to get back from which, and especially to recover the master post of the Grand Portage, had been the object of their labors for forty years. The value which they placed upon the recovery of the old route, should have been sufficient to open the eyes of our Secretary to the sacrifice he was making. But, neither this conduct, pregnant as it was; nor the testimony of Mr. Ferguson, pointed as it was; nor all that passed before the Ghent commissioners, could check his desire to oblige the British at the expense of his own country. He perseveres in his design to grant Lord Ashburton all he demanded; and this he hastens to do, although Mr. Ferguson, the other witness to whom he appeals, gives him pointed testimony, derived from their own conduct, against the fur-traders' claim. He says:

"I have no doubt that the bay of the Pigeon river is the Long Lake of the treaty of 1783. It is designated by the name on Mitchell's map, which, at that time, was the only map existing of these regions; and was proven, by the evidence of Mr. John Adams and Mr. John Jay, to have been the only geographical description before the negotiators of the first treaty. Though evidently defective and erroneous. it is but fair to take it a an evidence of the intention. In addition to this evidence of the construction of the treaty of 1783, at the time it was concluded, we have this fact further-that, immediately after the peace, the traders of the Northwest Fur Company destroyed their forts and warehouses at the Grand Portage, and removed themselves to Fort William, ten leagues on the other side of the Pigeon river-a course which could only have been adopted for the reason that they supposed their previous location would now be on foreign territory. In addition, I have never heard this construction of the treaty of 1783 questioned by any of the partners of the British Fur Company whom I have met in that quarter."

Both the gentlemen appealed to, give testimony in favor of their own country; but all to no purpose. One asserts the importance of the boundary in a national point of view; the other quotes the conduct of the fur traders against themselves; but no matter-our Secretary persists in his design to

Senate.

treat the choice of boundaries as of no importance, and to give the British their own choice, and to reestablish them in their old headquarters. On the 27th day of July, in the same letter in which he "proposes" to Lord Ashburton the new Maine boundary, he also "proposes" to him the new Lake Superior boundary; and does it in the precise words proposed by Mr. William McGillivray, the chief of the then Northwest Company, to the board under the Ghent commission in 1824-27. The Pigeon river-North and South Fowl Lakes-the Lake Sasaginaga--Cypress Lake-Lac du Bois Blanc--Lac Le Croix--Little Vermillion Lake-Lake Namecan-are all followed in this letter with minute particularity and Oriental scrupulosity. And then he adds a clause in relation to the portages, which is a copy of Lord Ashburton's demand, as Lord Ashburton's is a copy of Mr. Barclay's, which is itself a copy of Mr. William McGillivray's. Here is the Webster proposition for the portages in this portentous letter of July, 1827, consisting of the precise words which now constitute a part of the treaty:

"It being understood that all the water communications, and all the usual portages along the line from Lake uperior to the Lake of the Woods, and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use of the subjects and citizens of both countries."

And this ends the chapter of our wrongs on this section of our boundary between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods. The great united Hudson Bay and Northwest Company can now return as masters to the place from which they retired as trespassers forty years ago. After forty years wanderings in the wilderness of the Kamanistiquia, a deliverer and a leader has appeared to lead them forth. A new Joshua, in the person of our Secretary-negotiator, has come to the rescue; and the GRAND PORTAGE and the SOUTHERN ROUTE are again to become the seat of TRADE and EMPIRE to a SOVEREIGN Company, whose control over the Indians has cost the United States a myriad of lives, and a hundred millions of money.

It is in vain that the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. CHOATE,] feeling the overwhelming effect of this concession, labors to establish a distinction between the possession of the portages and their use. It is to no purpose, he alleges, that the late treaty has only granted the use of the GRAND PORTAGE, and the thirty-six other portages, formerly ours; it is a distinction without a difference. The new treaty alters the boundary; and then makes these portages free and common to each party. And this makes the treaty-rights of the British equal to our own; while their actual rights will be far superior to ours. The treaty makes us equal: the power of the company will make us unequal! They will have the exclusive use and possession on this line, as they have, under the same words, on the Columbia river. Every American who ventures on these portages will be shot by British Indians, as a thousand of them have been shot who have ventured to hunt or trade on the Columbia since the convention of 1818. It is in vain for the Senator to say the British cannot build and establish posts and depots on these portages: I answer, under the treaty their rights are equal to ours! that, in fact, they will be greater! and that British territory being now brought down to contiguity with all these portages, they can build and fortify adjoining to them, and still be upon their own territory. It is in vain that he relies upon the portage privileges in Mr. Jay's treaty. Those privileges only applied to the portages on the existing boundaries under the treaty of 1783; while the Webster treaty alters that boundary to confer these privileges in a new place! in a place from which Mr. Jay's treaty compelled these iraders to remove in 1802! It is in vain that he pleads the immateriality of the routes. That plea is invalidated by the conduct of the British themselves, in holding on to the portage route for twenty years after the peace of '83, and by forty years' exertion since to get back to it. It is invalidated by the testimony of Mr. Delafield. It is invalidated by every British affidavit produced before the Ghent commissioners. It is in vain to prove that the land is poor and steril. What do the British want with our poor land? That is the same plea on which Maine was dismembered and mutilated, and our military frontiers there given up. If poor land is a plea for the surrender of our territory, the mouth of the Mississippi, and all the Gulf coast, and much more, may be surrendered: for it can be proved to be unfit for cultivation. Mr. Webster can get affidavits to that effect, and surrender half the frontiers of the Union in his next British treaty. These pleas

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

will not do. They will not justify or excuse the sacrifice of ancient boundaries, the concession of territory, the grant of privileges, and the exemption from duties to a powerful and hostile company, wielding innumerable Indian tribes against us.

While making this sacrifice of an ancient and valuable boundary in this quarter, and bringing back the British to the ground from which they retired so long ago, our Secretary-negotiator has had the modesty to affect an acquisition of four millions of acres of fine mineral land in the same place; and our President has been good-natured enough to intimate the same thing in his message of August last. They do not exactly say so; but they make people believe it. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. CHOATE] says their words are literally true. I say so likewise, but that they excite a belief entirely untrue. The words are-that, by this treaty, four millions of acres of fine mineral land, between Pigeon river and St. Louis river, northward of the claim set up by the British (Ghent) commissioner, are included within the United States. Very good! They were never excluded from the United States! And Lord Ashburton set up no pretension to them! He asked for a change of boundary to our prejudice, and for our portages, and for exemption from duties; and he got all that he asked, with all the territory (including Hunters' Island, a large body of land, and many smaller islands) which lies between the two Pigeon river routes in the whole extent of their divergence, nearly 200 miles in length, and frequently half a degree apart. He got this territory, amounting to some hundreds of thousands of acres, in addition to all the advantages of the only good trading route, and the Grand Portage; and now to be entertained with a false belief, created by true words, of a fine mineral acquisition of four millions of acres, is carrying fiction, in a State paper, rather too far.

The Senator from Massachusetts, who defends the Secretary on this occasion, makes it matter of objection that I did not mention the portages in my speech of August last. True, I did not mention them, and for the best of all reasons. I had not then read the stipulation in relation to them. Stuck in, as they were, at the end of a long article about boundaries, I read far enough to see what this new boundary was, and denounced it as it deserved; but the portage clause I did not read until the present session. Happily, it is a case in which the statute of limitations does not apply! and having now made the discovery, the Secretary shall have the full benefit of it. Certainly it was not anticipated that my speech on the treaty--forty mortal columns of the imperial Globe--certainly it was not anticipated that there should be a complaint against that speech for defect of accusatory matter. But the complaint is made; and I must justify, by bringing up the omitted accusation. I say, then, this affair of the portages-and especially of the Grand Portage, and this exemption of a powerful company's goods from duties-constitutes one of the heaviest charges which I have found against the treaty. In the first place, it seems to militate against that clause in the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States. Next, it is manifestly unjust to our fur-traders, (who pay enormous duties,) to exempt their foreign competitors from the same burden. Then the stipulation itself is a cheat. It provides for the joint use of these portages, when everybody knows that in this casethe Columbia river has proved it-joint means erclusive; and that every American trader that dares to tread the same ground with them will be shot by British Indians. No palliation for this fatal concession can be found in Jay's treaty. That treaty only permitted the use of portages where these portages were on established boundaries; this treaty alters a boundary, to get a pretext for favoring the British! These traders could carry nothing on the portage route under Jay's treaty, because that route was not a boundary. They will now carry what they please upon it--and all free--because Webster's treaty has made it a boundary. He has altered the line for this purpose; and the long exiled Kaministiquia wanderers will come rushing back to take possession of their restored haunts. And who is it to whom this unconstitutional, unjustifiable, injurious, and dangerous advantage is given? Is it not that same powerful body of British traders to whom we are indebted for every Indian war in the Northwest, from the Revolution to the present day? to whom we are indebted for fourteen years retention of the Northwestern posts?

The Oregon Bill-Mr. Calhoun.

and to whom we are now indebted for all the dangers which environ our settlement of the Oregon? Is it not this same company which has cost us a myriad of lives--the babe and its mother, as well as the father-and which cost us during the late war alone, (to say nothing of other Indian wars,) sixty millions of dollars? The whole cost of the late war was one hundred and twenty millions; the one-half of which was sunk in the Northwest,making head against the Indians which this company excited against us. And who is it that is now rewarding this company for past injuries, and rendering them more potential for the future? Is it not the same gentleman whose voice was on the side of the British and the Indians, when their feet were on the soil of our country, and their knives in the throats of our people?-who denied us men, and money, and ships, during the late war, and then taunted us with our defeats, and sarcastically demanded, after the horrid massacre of the river Raisin, if that was the entertainment to which we had been invited? Surely it is the same man! and his treaties and negotiations now are in exact accordance with his votes and speeches then;-all on the side of the British, and all against his own country. And where did he get the power to demolish boundaries, release duties, and surrender portages? Where did he get the power for these acts? From President Tyler? If

So, show us the warrant. As Secretary, he is nothing but head clerk to the President, and can only act by his permission or command. He must have the President's instruction! and if we can be. lieve what was said at Boston, that instruction was a blank; and the head clerk headed his master!

Mr. President, we have fallen upon evil times; and great and strange are the calamities of the day. Modern Federalism sits at the head of our Government, and its genius is far more deleterious than the Federalism of ancient times. The old Federalists did many evil things; but they had their high points, from which they would never descend. They made a national bank, but did not christen it an exchequer. They made a bankrupt system, but did not systematize the repudiation of debts. They levied grievous taxes, but did not exempt foreigners from the levy. They invaded the State Governments at many points, but still left them their poor insolvent laws. They made treaties with England, but did not place our frontiers in her hands. Above all, they did not bring the British traders, red with the blood and loaded with the scalps of our citizens, within our borders; but sent them out, far away into the hideous wilderness. Modern Federalism has done all that ancient Federalism would not; and, for one, I infinitely prefer the old to the new. Give me John Jay, John Adams, and Rufus King-all leading Federalists in their day--in preference to Daniel Webster, Federal leader in this day, and John Tyler, his Democratic follower!

SPEECH OF MR. CALHOUN,

OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

In Senate, January 24, 1843--On the Oregon bill. Mr. CALHOUN said it ought to be borne in mind, in the discussion of this measure, that there is a conflict between our claim and that of Great Britain to the Oregon Territory; and that it extends to the whole territory from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific ocean; and from the northern limits of Mexico, in latitude 42, to the southern limits of the Russian possessions, in latitude 54. Nor ought it to be forgotten that the two Governments have made frequent attempts to adjust their conflicting claims, but, as yet, without success. The first of these was made in 1818. It proved abortive; but a convention was entered into, which provided that the territory should be left free and open to our citizens and the subjects of Great Britain for ten years; the object of which was to prevent collision and preserve peace, till their respective claims could be adjusted by negotiation. The next was made in 1824, when we offered to limit our claim to the territory by the 49th degree of latitude; which would have left to Great Britain all north of that latitude to the southern boundary of Russia. Her negotiator objected, and proposed the Columbia river as the boundary between the possessions of the two countries. It enters the ocean about the 46th degree of latitude. It follows, that the portion of the territory really in dispute be tween the two countries is about three degrees of latitude--that is, about one-fourth of the whole.

Senate.

The attempt to adjust boundaries again failed, and nothing was effected. I learn from our negotiator, (a distinguished citizen of Pennsylvania, now in the city,) that the negotiation was conducted with much earnestness, and not a little feeling, on the part of the British negotiators.

In 1827, just before the termination of the ten years, another attempt was made at an adjustment. The negotiation was conducted on our part by Mr. Gallatin. The whole subject was discussed fully, and with great ability and clearness on both sides; but, like the two preceding, failed to adjust the conflicting claims. The same offers were made respectively by the parties that were, in 1824, and again rejected. All that could be done was to renew the convention of 1818; but with the provision, that each party might, at its pleasure, terminate the agreement, by giving a year's notice. The object of the renewal was, as in 1818, to preserve peace for the time, by preventing either party from asserting its exclusive claim to the territory; and that of the insertion of the provision, to give either party the right of doing so whenever it might think proper, by giving the stipulated notice.

Nor ought it to be forgotten, that, during the long interval from 1818 to this time, continued efforts have been made, in this and the other House, to induce Congress to assert, by some act, our exclusive right to the territory; and that they have all heretofore failed. It now remains to be seen whether this bill, which covers the whole territory, as well north as south of the 49th, and provides for granting land, and commencing systematically the work of colonization and settlement, shall share the fate of its predecessors.

To determine whether it ought or ought not, involves the decision of two preliminary questions. The first is, whether the time has now arrived when it would be expedient on our part to attempt to assert and maintain our exclusive claim to the territory, against the adverse claim of Great Britain; and the other, if it has, whether the mode proposed in this bill is the proper one.

In discussing them, I do not intend to involve the question of our right to the territory, nor its value, nor whether Great Britain is actuated by that keen, jealous, and hostile spirit towards us, which has been attributed to her in this discussion. I shall, on the contrary, assume our title to be as valid as the warmest advocate of this bill asserts it to be; the territory to be, as to soil, climate, production, and commercial advantages, all that the ardent imagination of the author of the measure paints it to be; and Great Britain to be as formidable and jealous as she has been represented. I make no issue on either of these points. I controvert none of them. According to my view of the subject, it is not necessary. On the contrary, the clearer the title, the more valuable the territory; and the more powerful and hostile the British Gov. ernment, the stronger will be the ground on which I rest my opposition to the bill.

With these preliminary remarks, I repeat the question, Has the time arrived, when it would be wise and prudent for us to attempt to assert and maintain our exclusive right to the territory, against the adverse and conflicting claim of Great Britain? I answer, No, it has not; and that for the decisive reason, because the attempt, if made, must prove unsuccessful against the resistance of Great Britain. We could neither take nor hold it against her; and that, for a reason not less decisive-that she could in a much shorter time, and at far less expense, concentrate a far greater force than we could in the territory.

We seem to forget, in the discussion of this subject, the great events which have occurred in the eastern portion of Asia, during the last year, and which have so greatly extended the power of Great Britain in that quarter of the globe. She has there, in that period, terminated successfully two wars; by one of which she has given increased quiet and stability to her possessions in India; and by the other, has firmly planted her power on the eastern coast of China, where she will undoubtedly keep up, at least for a time, a strong military and naval force, for the purpose of intimidation and strengthening her newly acquired possession. The point she occu pies there on the western shore of the Pacific,is almost directly opposite to the Oregon Territory, at the distance of about five thousand five hundred miles from the mouth of Columbia river, with a tranquil ocean between, which may be passed over in six weeks. In that short time, she might place, at a moderate expense; a strong naval and military force at the