27TH CONG....3D SESS. and buildings at Astoria, changed the name to Fort George, and hoisted the British flag. This was an act of public war. The place fell by belligerent capture. The property belonged to citizens of the United States, and was under the protection of our flag. England acquired no other right than that which grew out of the laws of war. I have detailed the material facts of the transaction, in order to show that England herself did not regard that capture as of any possession or territory of hers. Immediately after the treaty of Ghent, the United States demanded the restoration of Astoria, in pursuance of the stipulations in the first article, which provided that all territory, places, and possessions, captured by one party from the other during the war, should be restored. Accordingly, after writing two letters denying our right to be restored to possession; and after an attempt to have the question referred to an umpire, which our Government refused; and after an armed vessel of the United States had actually sailed for the mouth of the Columbia, for the purpose of reoccupying Astoria, and finding that nothing would do but the restoration of the fort and property, the British Government surrendered it. The act of delivery is worth reading, to show the good taste in which that Government can do things, and also to show the unqualified terms in which the restoration was made. It is in these words: "In obedience to the commands of his royal highness the Prince Regent, signified in a despatch from the right honorable the Earl Bathurst, addressed to the partners or agents of the Northwest Company, bearing date the 27th January, 1818, and in obedience to a subsequent order, dated the 26th of July, from W. H. Sherriff, Esq., captain of his Majesty's ship Andromache, we, the undersigned, do, in conformity to the first article of the treaty of Ghent, restore to the Government of the United States, through its agent, J. B. Provost, Esq., the settlement of Fort George on the Columbia river. Given under our hands, in triplicate, at Fort George, (Columbia river,) this 6th day of October, 1818. F. HICKEY, Captain of H. M. Ship Blossom. Of the Northwest Company." We were, therefore, restored to the possession of Astoria in the most ample manner; and the United States have been in the legal possession ever since. In 1818 Lord Castlereagh admitted the full right of the Americans to be reinstated, and to be the party in possession while treating of title. By the conventional law of Europe, the consummation of the inchoate title gained by discovery is the formation of settlements in the country discovered. This is a safe and well-settled rule; and we can justly say, that both by right of discovery, and by continued acts of ownership, as well as by the title derived through France and Spain, the United States, according to the settled law of nations, has a clear and undoubted right and title to the Territory of Oregon. There is another branch of this subject to be considered. It is as to the validity of the claim which England has made to that territory. I propose to state the nature of this claim, that it may be seen in connexion with the view I have presented of our own. The subject is one of great interest, and an examination of its merits cannot be uninteresting to the country. England places her claim upon the right of discovery, and upon a treaty with Spain dated in 1790. The first English navigator that is mentioned as conferring any claim is Sir Francis Drake. He sailed from Plymouth in 1577, and arrived in the Pacific the next year. England and Spain were at peace; but as soon as he arrived at the Spanish towns of Gautulco, Acapulco, and others in Mexico, he commenced a system of robbery upon their towns and ships, that was altogether new to the Spaniards. We do not know what his instructions were; but one thing is certain-that he meant to let the Spaniards know that there was such a man as Sir Francis Drake. He certainly created quite a sensation, for the historian says that the bare mention of his name would horrify the people for a century afterwards. After he had thus amused himself, The Oregon Bill—Mr. Mc Roberts. he sailed up the coast to 43 degrees north; and then returned to the coast at 38 degrees, repaired his ship, called the country New Albion, accepted the crown from the natives in the name of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and arrived in England in 1580. The whole of the coast seen by Drake, so far as we can judge from the evidence, had been explored under the authority of Spain thirty-six years before, and several times within that period. Sir Thomas Cavendish next attempted the circumnavigation of the globe, in the list of English advenHe does not appear to have seen as much of the coast as Drake had before him. turers. The next name that appears in the list of English discoverers, is one that has been made immortal by his public services, and by the justice and excellence of his character. I mean the celebrated Captain Cook. England was anxious to ascertain whether there was or was not a northern passage by water connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. She despatched ships forth at purpose, at the same time, to the north Pacific, and to Baffin's Bay. Captain Cook was selected to take charge of the expedition to the Pacific. He was instructed to fall in with the Northwest coast at latitude 45, to recruit his wood and water, and then to sail to latitude 65 degrees north, and there to begin his examination for "a water passage pointing towards Hudson or Baffin's Bay." If he became convinced that no such communication existed, he was to explore the seas north as far as he could. He was to take possession of such countries as he might discover, that had not already been discovered or visited by other European powers. He was not to touch upon any part of the Spanish dominions, unless driven there by accident. He was to give no offence to the subjects of his Catholic Majesty or of Russia, but to treat them with friendship. Such is the substance of Cook's instructions. They clearly point out the objects of his voyage, and the views of the British Government. Cook sailed from England and reached the Northwest coast in 1778. He saw Cape Blanco in latitude 43, and Cape Flattery in latitude 48. But he did not see the mouth of the Columbia, nor the strait of Fuca. The 29th of March, 1778, he anchored in Nootka Sound. He remained there four weeks, repairing his vessels, and trading with the Indians. He found they had weapons of iron, and ornaments of brass. One chief had two.silver spoons of Spanish manufacture. He saw Mount San Jacinto, which had been named four years before by Bodega, and Mount St. Elias, described in Bhering's voyage. He continued his examinations north, passed into the Arctic ocean, to the western extremity of America, and crossed over to Asia, naming the strait after Bhering, in honor of its first discoverer. He traced the coast of America to latitude 70 degrees 30 minutes north, when he had to return in consequence of the ice. He found no passage to the Atlantic, because none existed. The remainder of his history is known to the world. He visited the Russian settlement at Unalashka on his way to the south, and arrived at Owyhee, where, on the 16th of February, 1779, this gallant and generous man was murdered by savages. The examinations and surveys of Cook in the north Pacific are of imperishable value. They opened to the world a new theatre for enterprise. But his instructions and the settled laws of nations prevented him from acquiring any rights by discovery to the Oregon Territory. His operations were directed to regions far north, and his discovery of the Capes Blanco and Flattery, and landing at Nootka, gave no right to England; for all these points had been previously seen and explored by Spanish navigators. Nootka Sound had been occupied by Perez in 1774, which was four years before Cook arrived. The subsequent navigators, Mears, Vancouver, and others, were nothing but trespassers upon the discoveries of Spain and of the United States. The next ground of title assumed by Great Britain is founded upon a treaty with Spain. It is, therefore, necessary that we look into the provisions of that treaty. In 1826, upon the renewal of the discussion in regard to the Oregon between Great Britain and the United States, Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Addington, the ministers of Great Britain, in a Senate. communication to Mr. Gallatin, state their claim growing out of the Spanish treaty in these words: "Great Britain claims no exclusive sovereignty over any portion of the territory on the Pacific, between the 42d and 49th parallel of latitude; her present claim-not in respect to any part, but to the whole-is limited to a right of joint occupancy in common with other States, leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abeyance; and her pretensions tend to the mere maintenance of her own rights, in resistance to the exclusive character of the pretensions of the United States. "The rights of Great Britain are recorded and defined in the convention of 1790, (with Spain;) they embrace the right to navigate the waters of those countries, to settle in and over any part of them, and to trade with the inhabitants and occupiers of the same. It is admitted that the United States possess the same rights; but, beyond those rights, they possess none." Here, then, we have not only the rights of Great Britain defined, but we are modestly told what are our rights. Her claim, it is said, is limited to a right of joint occupancy in common with other States. What other States? In 1826, did any other Government but ours (except the claim she was putting forth) lay claim to it? Spain, France, and Russia, had all renounced to us, and the boundaries were established. And is England to decide that the only right to Oregon, in favor of any Government, is a mere possessory one; and that it is a common right equally belonging to other States? If it would seem that our treaties with France, Spain, and Russia, are to be abrogated; that our right to Oregon must be abandoned; and that henceforth it is to be regarded as a country subject to the claim of any "other States" of the world. The avowal of doctrines so monstrous, and so wholly at war with the settled law of nations, only proves the utter groundlessness of her claim. 80, Let it be remembered that her ministers declared that "the rights of Great Britain are recorded and defined in the convention of 1790" with Spain. And then let us proceed to examine what are the rights, the breadth and length of which are recorded in that convention. Here is the fifth article, the one upon which these supposed English rights are founded: "Art. 5. As well in the places which are to be restored to the British subjects by virtue of the first article, as in all other parts of the northwestern coast of North America, or of the islands adjacent, situate to the north of the coast already occupied by Spain, wherever the subjects of either of the two powers shall have made settlements since the month of April, 1789, or shall hereafter make any, the subjects of the other shall have free access, and shall carry on their trade without any disturbance or molestation." Now, in what places, or upon what "parts" of the northwestern coast of North America, did this article operate? Is it upon the whole Northwest coast, or only upon a part of it? The plain language of the article furnishes the answer. It is upon the "parts of the northwestern coast, or of the islands adjacent, situate to the north of the coast already occupied by Spain, wherever the subjects of either of the two powers shall have made settlements since the month of April, 1789." And what parts of the northwest coast of North America did the subjects of either Spain or England then occupy by settlements made after the month of April, 1789? It is proved beyond all doubt, that the only place upon which either Spanish or British subjects made settlements between the month of April, 1789, and the 28th of October, 1790, the date of the convention, was at Nootka Sound. The testimony furnished by England and Spain, and the letters of Captain Gray and Joseph Ingraham, all concur in proving this. Nootka was head-quarters. The ships, after obtaining their supply of furs, sailed from there directly to Canton. The language of the convention could not refer to the ancient southern settlements at California or San Francisco. The dispute had grown out of disturbances at Nootka, upon the Northwest coast. Spain occupied Nootka; so had England; the convention looked to that occupation, 27TH CONG.......3D SESS. The joint occupancy was not to be to the south, but exclusively north of the parts so occupied. And Nootka is in latitude 49° 40', which is two hundred and forty miles north of the mouth of the Columbia river. That convention, therefore, never gave to England the right to occupy a foot of territory south of Nootka Sound. Sir, no part of the valley of the Columbia river is included in that treaty. And Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Addington, in stating that "the rights of Great Britain are recorded and defined in the convention of 1790 with Spain," have admitted that England has no rights whatever south of Nootka. Mr. President, (said Mr. McR.,) in this construction of the treaty of 1790, I am sustained by the highest possible evidence. I am sustained by the authority of British statesmen, who supported that treaty when Mr. Pitt brought it before Parliament. I read from the 28th volume of Parliamentary History. The Duke of Montrose, who moved an address of thanks to his Majesty for having made the treaty, said: "We are not only restored to Nootka, but, by an express stipulation, we may participate in a more northern settlement, if we should find at any time that a more northern situation would be preferable for the carrying on of the trade." Mr. Dundas said: "At Nootka we have obtained a specific right of settlement to trade and fish," page 980. Mr. Smith, another friend of the ministry, and who warmly supported the treaty, said: "The whole coast of Prince William's Sound was free for us to settle on, no place being occupied there by a Spanish colony." And where is Prince William's Sound? Mr. McR. said, by turning to the map it appeared that it is situated directly west of Mount St. Elias, in the 60th degree of north latitude, being nine hundred miles north of Columbia river. Here we have the construction put upon the treaty by its friends, that the right on the part of Great Britain to make settlements was to be to the north of Nootka. The same volume (said Mr. McR.) contains the opinions of members of Parliament who were opposed to the treaty. The celebrated Mr. Fox, of whose talents and sagacity I need not speak here, in the debate upon the convention, said: "Our right before was to settle in any part of South or Northwest America not fortified against us by previous occupancy; and we are now restricted to settle in certain places only, and under certain restrictions." Again, at page 996 he says: "We had obtained an admission of our rights to settle to the north; and even that we had not obtained with clearness, as Spanish settlements' were the only mark of limits." Lord North said: "Was it not necessary to know the reasons for so vague a delineation of our rights in the Northwestern American seas, as the convention contained; and of the boon of Spain's not colonizing beyond the most northern of her settlements?" The Marquis of Lansdowne said: "As to the particular terms of the convention just concluded, it stipulated, with respect to Nootka Sound, what was either pernicious or trifling. It appeared madness to think of colonies, after what had passed in North America." The last remark, you perceive, is a very pointed one; and being made but nine years after the Revolution, its import was well understood. Sir, many members denounced the ministry, in terms of bitter reproach, because the treaty had not secured to them more of the Northwest coast, and because the British were restricted in their settlements to the territory north of Nootka. Lord Porchester said: "A conduct so absurd and pernicious, so destitute of all policy, the history of nations cannot exhibit. Bullying so unprovoked, evaporating at length in a convention so unmeaning, confidence given so liberally, and so illy rewarded, never was paralleled. Did not the event, he asked, confirm the very general observation without doors, that we The Oregon Bill-Mr. McRoberts. had a ministry who had neither courage to make war, nor the skill to make peace?" And, sir, (said Mr. McR.,) this very subject of boundary, and the exclusion of the British traders from the country south of Nootka-that is, from the whole valley of the Columbia river-was pressed upon the ministry as a dereliction of duty, with all the strength and eloquence of a most talented opposition. This point was never denied by the ministry or their friends. The treaty was defended on other grounds, and was adopted, with the admission of its friends, and the charge of its opponents, that the British right of joint occupancy with Spain was confined to the country north of Nootka Sound. And yet, sir, it was in this treaty-ay, this farfamed treaty-that, in 1826, Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Addington averred that "the rights of Great Britain are recorded and defined." I take them at their word; and the history now exhibited, the concurrent testimony of its friends and opponents at the time of its adoption, together with the language of the treaty itself, all prove that it gave to Great Britain no right at all to any part of Oregon. We look to something higher than Nootka conventions for our title. It is based upon the first elements of national law,-upon prior discovery, upon occupancy, and upon deeds of purchase from France and Spain. I have now done with this branch of the subject -the question of title. It is one of great and transcendant importance to the whole community; for our people, who square their lives by a sense of justice to others, only want to know what are their own rights, in order to defend and maintain them. And upon the views now presented of our indefeasible title to the Oregon Territory, I am willing to abide the decision of the living, and the judgment of posterity. The bill before us proposes 1st. To cause a line of posts, not to exceed five in number, to be established from our Western boundary to the mouth of the Columbia river. 2d. To attach the Oregon to the Territory of Iowa, for judicial purposes; and to appoint a judge and justices of the peace to administer the laws. 3d. That Congress will hereafter provide for granting to each inhabitant over eighteen years of age six hundred and forty acres of land, who shall "ultivate it five years; to the wife of each occupant, one hundred and sixty acres; and to the father, for each child he may have under eighteen years of age, or that may be born there within the five years, one hundred and sixty acres. These are the inducements which the bill proposes as an encouragement to emigrants. The honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] and the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. CHOATE] are of opinion that the proposed grants of land may come in conflict with one of our treaty stipulations, giving a right of joint occupancy to English subjects. Now I think that, upon a more full examination of the subject, the objection will be removed; and I believe I shall be able to show that England has been permitting to be done precisely what we propose to do. The convention of October 20, 1818, and extended by that of August 6, 1827, was intended for the purposes of hunting and trapping, the whole object was to preserve peace among men of the two nations, in pursuit of furs and skins. The convention expressly exempted the title to the country from its operation. We can, therefore, as well dispose of the title to the land, as though the convention had no exist ence. Upon this point there can be no doubt. Now, as to the propriety of doing it, we all know that the leading inducements to the formation of that convention, which was to facilitate the collection of furs and skins, has almost entirely ceased; and particularly in the country south of the Columbia, which is the best adapted to agricultural pur suits. The hunter has laid by his rifle and traps, and is cultivating the land for a subsistence. If our people go there, they must pursue the mechanics arts, or be cultivators of the soil-not hunters. And they will not go to Oregon, unless we make provision for them. Indeed, this donation is the most capital Mr. McROBERTS. We do not differ upon that point. Now the convention of 1818, creating the joint occupancy, by one of its provisions, can be annulled by giving twelve months' notice. The passage of this bill will induce the Executive to give the required notice, or we can have it done by a joint-resolution. Before our people can get to Oregon, the convention will be annulled; although it imposes no obligation incompatible with our right to pass this bill. But there are other reasons: the bill is a pledge that we will make provision for emigrants and settlers, though no grant is to be made under five years. This pledge to provide for cultivators of the soil could not, therefore, molest the British subjects in any right of hunting, trapping, fishing, or farming, which was provided for or contemplated in the convention of 1818. Sir, (said Mr. McR.,) the British Government have been for ten years doing, or permitting to be done, precisely what we propose. Its subjects have already large farms in Oregon. One gentleman there in 1837, as we learn from a letter of one of the missionaries, raised 4,500 bushels of wheat, 4,000 bushels peas, 1,700 bushels barley, 1,500 bushels oats, and potatoes in proportion. He has 750 cattle, 400 hogs, 200 horses, and a grist and saw mill of great value, and works one hundred hands, mostly Canadians. He has a garden of five acres (I quote from the printed letter) "stored with almost every species of vegetables, fruits, and flowers; among them figs, citrons, oranges, lemons, pomegranates, cotton plants, and all common fruits in the United States. Everything produces well. For some days our time was divided between visits to the farm, the mills, the herds, the dairy, the stores, the ships in port, the school, &c. It, of course, gave us great satisfaction to witness these fruits of civilization, which we supposed our eyes had looked upon for the last time when we passed the ftontier line of our own land." This is farming upon no ordinary scale. The es tablishment at Vancouver trades largely to the Sandwich Islands in flour and sawed lumber. Both English and Americans have farms on the Wallamett. And, sir, Great Britain is encouraging this policy, and declares that she will protect her subjects in this individual appropriation of the land. Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Addington, in 1826, in a despatch to our ministers, said: "In the interior of the territory in question, the subjects of Great Britain have had for many years numerous settlements and trading-posts. And they navigate the Columbia as the sole channel for the conveyance of their prod uce to the British stations nearest to the sea, &c. To the interests and establishments which British industry and enterprise have created, Great Britain owes protection; that protection will be given, both as regards settlement and freedom of trade and navigation." This is all that is material in the state ment. Sir, (said Mr. McR.,) what is this but an appro priation of land? We allowed her a temporary right of joint occupancy with us; and under this, England encourages her subjects to settle and cultivate the land, erect farms and build mills, and then tells you that her subjects shall be protected in their settlements and establishments thus formed or to be formed. Is there any difference between such a declaration, and the pledge which we make to provide for settlers in this bill? In substance, they are precisely the same. The Senator from Massachusetts says that England might also make grants of land to her subjects, which might produce collisions between persons holding adjoining farms under different titles. This is the answer: England could make no grants where she had no title. She might as well make grants upon the Potomac, as upon the Columbia, But this bill removes all tempt 27TH CONG....3D SESS. ation for such a procedure, by conferring its privileges upon all residents, whether they be of AngloAmerican or European blood. England, therefore, could have no cause of complaint, because such of her subjects as may have built farms, and who see proper to remain in the country and become subject to our laws and jurisdiction, would be protected, and placed upon the footing of our own citizens. This matter has been thoroughly considered; and the provisions of the bill promising to make future provision for those who have or may expend their labor or money in making farms, is founded in the highest principle of justice and philosophy. Sir, a sense of public duty requires immediate action. By our settled policy, we have placed a numerous Indian population upon our Western borders, extending from Iowa to the line of Texas. They are now at peace with us; but they are the shattered fragments of a hundred hostile tribes, and are composed of the very elements of war. Being on the frontier, they are liable to be influenced by those who have been, and again may become, inimical to us. I need not stop here to tell the Senate from what source all our Indian wars have proceeded, or whose hands first kindled the hostile fires; the world knows all this, for the history of it is written in blood. What plan could so effectually remove the temptation to war on the part of those tribes, as also of the tribes still more remote, as to have a population in their rear sufficient to overpower them? He The natural element of the Indian is war. is taught it from his mother's lips in the wigwam, and sees it practised and cherished as the highest virtue of his tribe. We must counteract as far as possible this dangerous propensity of his being; we must remove the temptation; we must provide guards for protection; and the settlement of the Oregon with an efficient population would accomplish all this, and would create a moral power which, in time, would extinguish their war fires. The Territory of Oregon, to which our right is indisputable, extends from the 42d to the 49th degree of north latitude, and from the Pacific ocean to our territory east of the Rocky Mountains. This comprises a fertile region 700 miles wide at one extremiity, and 500 at the other, running through seven degrees of latitude, and embracing nearly two hundred millions of acres-enough to form three or four new States. Hitherto it might have been thought we had territory enough, and that for some generations at least we would not have use for more. But the late census, as well as those preceding, shows that we may count upon our population being doubled every twenty-three or four years. Here is the table showing our increase: By this ratio we may expect to have a population of fifty-two millions in 1880, and at the close of the present century at least ninety-two millions. We lay claim to nothing but what belongs to us by right. By the mode proposed in this bill, we can accomplish this without any reasonable ground of offence towards any other Government. We have to act for those who are to succeed us; and our neglect of their interests, at the critical moment when it is our duty to place them on a permanent foundation, will be wholly inexcusable. That duty is now to assert our rights-to extend our laws over the country-to encourage the occupation of our own territory by our own citizens-to give them temporary protection in their emigration; and, in less than ten years, your hardy citizens transplanted to this new section of our Union will be able to defend and protect themselves. Sir, I want to see no more of this delay-no more procrastination. "To-morrow, and to morrow, and to-morrow, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all your yesterdays have lighted men The great interests of the country require actionspeedy and determined action; and I appeal to politi The Oregon Bill—Mr. Woodbury. cal opponents as well as friends to unite with us, and give an undivided support to this bill. Other nations will take warning by it. If our right to Oregon can be settled only by war, then my constituents, and I believe the whole country, will unite with me in saying, Let it come. That territory belongs to us, as I have this day demonstrated; and I hold it one of our highest national duties to assert that title, let what may come. us a decisive vote in both Houses of Congress. Unanimity upon the question is all that is now necessary; it will settle it as effectually as the sword. Give SPEECH OF MR. WOODBURY, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. In Senate, January 24, 1843-On the Oregon bill. Mr. WOODBURY asked if no legislation had taken place as to the Territory of Iowa or Florida, whether a bill like this, in respect to them, could be deemed objectionable? When our citizens had been plundered and murdered in numerous instances in a part of the country claimed to be our own, should we-would we--not protect them? All the bill proposed was, to do this; and he believed the Territory of Oregon to be ours, as incontestably as that of Florida or Iowa. This bill merely interposed the shield of American legislation over Americans there, authorized forts for their safety, and held out promises of land to insure settlers, and supplies to our own forts and vessels. But there were objections to such a measure. If legitimate, they must arise from some doubts connected with our right to the territory, or with the expediency of legislation in this manner, and at the present moment. It will simplify the inquiry to see if there be any just ground for such doubts. He could not concede that there were. First, as to the right. Every Senator who has spoken on this question has either attempted to prove, or bas conceded, our right to the soil and sovereignty of the Territory of Oregon, independent of the treaties with England in 1818 and 1827. Who will now, in this chamber, deny or question that right? After the discovery by Captan Gray in 1788-'9; after the cession to us of Louisiana in 1803; after the explorations by Lewis and Clarke in 1805; after the occupation up to the war of 1812, and the restoration of the fort at the mouth of the Columbia in 1818 to this country; after the grant to us by Spain, in 1819, of all her claims north of the 42d degree of latitude; after the relinquishment to us, by Russia, of all claim south of the 54th degree,-I ask if any one here is prepared to doubt our right? I speak in an American Congress, and to American citizens; and do not propose to detain the Senate by going into this branch of the question, as regards the old claims of either England or the rest of the world. She herself may feel some confidence in them; but she has admitted that, while she claims some rights there independent of, and prior to the treaties of 1818 and 1827, yet that they are subject to negotiation; and are to be exercised subordinate to our possession, as well as our claims. Hence in 1818 (Feb. 14th) Mr. Rush says: (4th vol. Gales and Seaton's State Papers, p. 853:) "It is proper, at this stage, to say that Lord Castlereagh admitted, in the most ample extent, our right to be reinstated, and to be the party possession, while treating of the title." It is, then, manifest that, our rights being clear to ourselves, and our possession being admitted to be proper by England during any negotiation as to their title, independent of the treaties before named, we can properly pass this bill, and fully occupy the territory, unless this would conflict with those treaties. Ifit would, far be it from me to urge the passage of the bill. I would respect the faith of treaties as strongly as any one. How stands the case, then, under them? for no claims beyond those treaties exist in any other nation or power, which England can set up against this measure. So says Lyman, (Diplomatic Cor. p. 99.) So says Baylies, in his report to the House of Representatives in May, 1826. Nor do I acknowledge her guardianship over other nations to enforce their claims, if they possessed any. We have had quite too much of her professed championship for the rest of the world; and especially in respect to our keeping a squadron on the coast of Africa. When we attempted to negotiate a treaty of com. merce with the King of Siam, her agents on the Senate. opposite side of the giobe interposed there to thwart us. Again at Muscat they intermeddled, and failed. When Mr. Monroe, in 1823, made his noble declaration against any new colonization by Europeans on this continent, again she interfered with that. If we shall hereafter attempt to hunt the seal, or chase whales on the coasts of the Antarctic continent, discovered by our enterprising vessels, I suppose we are again to be meddled with there. So be it; and so be its natural consequences in due time. But though in 1818 Russia and Spain may have had some claim to parts of the Territory of Oregon, they have both been since extinguished; and all those of France disappeared long ago, with the cession to us of Louisiana. Whose claims, then, but her own, does the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. CHOATE] seem to apprehend she can interpose? No European power can have any; and if the sovereigns of any of the South Sea islands, or the Emperor of Japan, have any, whose canoes or junks were ever blown on the Northwest coast, I believe they have not yet been hunted up by any of the indefatigable agents of British domination." Do I make these remarks in derogation of her right to take care of her own interests, and, at proper times and places, to enforce her own claims? On the contrary, I respect her the more for standing by what belongs to herself; but abhor her officiousness in behalf of others, and the arrogant assumption, at times, (by herself, or others for her,) that she must dictate to the whole circle of civ ilized mankind. Let us scrutinize, then, the origin and object of the treaties of 1818 and 1827, in order to see whether the present bill militates against the provisions of either of them. If it does not, even the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. CHOATE] avows a willingness to support it. Those treaties, it will be seen, originated in measures to adjust the commercial relations between England and the United States. The first one (of which the other is but a prolongation) took place, not at the peace-settling boundaries, extent of territories, jurisdiction, title to soil, powers of government, and all that;-but it was entered into some years after; and as a second commercial convention with England since the peace. The other (in July 1815) related to the rights of trade in settled parts of the two countries--and this, chiefly to the rights of fishing, hunting, and trading, in some unsettled parts of both countries: for one clause of it gives us access to acknowledged portions of her seaboard at the northeast, to dry fish, until the country is settled; while another-and that, the clause under consideration-secures to each, free and open access to the Territory of Oregon for ten years, evidently for objects of trade, the fisheries, and the chase. These are the main objects of the conventions, though some matters not technically commercial may be provided for in parts of them. That this article now in question is a commercial one, is to be inferred from the particular language, no less than the occasion and general object of the treaty. The language is, not that the country west of the Rocky Mountains shall belong, in its soil and sovereignty, to both parties, or be governed jointly by them; but that "the same be free and open, for the term of ten years," "to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers." The natural import of this is, that neither party shall be excluded by the other from fishing, hunting, and trading there, during that period; but the same shall remain free and open to each, for such objects. So far from this having been intended to suspend or forbid any rights of soil, or government, which either party might claim, or choose to exercise, it proceeded expressly to provide "that this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two contracting parties may have to any part of the said country. If the treaty meant merely to stipulate that the commerce in and over the country should be free and open-leaving the title to it, and the sovereignty over it, and its government, in the mean time, as it was, or might be by virtue of other rights-then it is a natural arrangement, and not a novel one. Thus to take a common case, for illustration-had we, by the other commercial treaty, as to the settled portions of the two countries, made New York a free port, and open to English subjects,-is there any pretence that the 27TH CONG....3D SESS. words free and open would have conferred on them any right of soil there, or any territorial authority? Many similar treaties apply merely to commercial intercourse; and that between England and Russia, made in 1825, contains an example in point with the illustration just given. In the 8th article, it is provided that "the port of Githa, or Novo Archangelsk, shall be open to the commerce and vessels of British subjects, for the space of ten years," &c. But this, of course, could not affect the right of soil, or government. In other parts of that treaty, providing for mutual access to a certain tract of country, and with a view, doubtless, to shun any equivocal or doubtful expressions, it uses different language from our treaty, (but obviously with the same idea,) and says the parties "shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without any hindrance whatever, all," &c., "for the purposes of fishing and trading with the natives." And, where a stipulation is made to let either party have power to colonize, or govern, it uses words different still, and speaks of making an "establishment"-and not merely of the country being free or open to vessels and subjects, or there being to both parties mere "liberty of com merce." So, in the treaty between us in Russia, in 1824, similar language is employed-almost verbatim, literatim. It also refers to the prevention of illicit trade, as the object of some of the provisions; and that was a prominent design in some of the articles in the Nootka Sound treaty of 1790-which last treaty was the prolific source of all provisions of this character since. The difficulty in that case grew out of the persevering attempts by England to push her commerce into every nook of the habitable globe, and procure new markets for her manufactures, even at the expense of the colonial systems of Spain or France. Hence the message of the King of England, (28 Par. Hist., p. 763,) asking for additional means to resist the conduct of Spain in seizing her ships, speaks of it in a commercial view more than one of sovereignty. Hence, also, most of the articles in the Nootka Sound treaty relate to commerce, and provide new and stronger guards against illicit trade, wherever Spain had before occupied the country. They even push all British vessels "ten sea leagues from any part of the coast already occupied by Spain," when three leagues is the usual distance. And the fifth article, which resembles and was the basis of our treaty of 1818, allowed new settlements only far north of Oregon, and then only in places not occupied before April, 1789; and to them, by whichever power made, "the subjects of the other shall have free access, and shall carry on their trade without any disturbance or molestation. (See 28 Par. Hist., p. 916) But this did not allow, nor mean to allow, each a title in the soil, or a right to govern the country. It was intended to be access for trade, and trade alone. In short, the debates on that treaty speak of the controversy as being commercial in its origin and bearing; and little seems to have been settled clearly by any part of the treaty, and nothing by this part of it, except the rights of trade. The similar arrangement between Russia and England is classed by McCulloch under the head of commercial treaties. Sometimes such treaties go further, and regulate settlements. But then they use different and clear language, as before shown in the Russian treaties. So, by one article of the Nootka Sound convention, (where, at the southern part of this continent, the parties were, under the treaty, expressly allowed to erect buildings in places not before occupied,) it is still carefully provided that they must be "for the purpose of their fishery," and be mere "huts, or other temporary buildings, serving only for those purposes." Under a like caution in this treaty of 1818, in the article allowing us to dry fish on the unsettled parts of British America at the northeast, clearly belonging to England, it is provided that, "so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants," &c. Thus we see that, in no other treaty is the right of settlement, or of soil, or of government, regulated without using explicit language to that effect, and language entirely different from that employed in our treaty of 1818. As another evidence that no intention existed in the last instrument to grant or regulate any claim, or exercise of claim, to the title and the sovereign The Oregon Bill-Mr. Woodbury. ty, except to prevent them from being so used as to interfere with freedom of trade to both parties during the stipulated period, we have already cited the reservation in the treaty itself, that it should not injure or prejudice such claim. Senate. joint legislatures?-a joint executive? But, on the contrary, if the treaty is construed to admit both parties to freedom of trade, that is natural, common, and practicable; and where nations mean to go further, and control possession, title, and sov. The reservation in the convention of 1827 is ereignty, they use different and clear words of still stronger. It is, that "nothing contained in this convention," or in the third article of that of 1818, "shall be construed to impair, or in any manner affect, the claims which either of the contracting parties may have to any part of the country westward of the Stony or Rocky Mountains." But, if these treaties are to be construed to prevent us from taking possession of the country, in a territorial point of view, which we claimed the right to before 1818, and which England herself conceded, then it is manifest they are construed so as both to affect and impair our claim to the country. They suspend it, interrupt it, and, for the time being, destroy it. In 1812, we were, by our citizens, in actual possession of a part of the country-with a fort and Occupants at the mouth of the Columbia. After the war, and before this treaty, that fort was restored to us officially and formally, as a duty under the treaty of peace. And Lord Castlereagh, in a letter from Mr. Rush before cited, appears to have "admitted, in the most ample extent, our right to be reinstated, and to be the party in possession while treating of the title." The occupants of the fort considered themselves there, not for sovereignty, but for "commercial pursuits." (See 4th vol. Gales & Seaton's State Papers, page 856.) And they well understood the difference between that, and occupation for government; as they inquired whether they would be indemnified if they were ejected or disturbed "prior to the final decision of the right of sovereignty to the country between our respective Governments." (State Papers, letter October 6, 1818.) This view also prevailed in England, as well as in Oregon, with the British ministry since, as well as before, the convention of October 20, 1818; for, in the negotiations which preceded the second convention, they proposed to extend the time fifteen years, and to introduce provisions "that neither power should assume or exercise any right of sovereignty or dominion over any part of the country during that period." (See Greenhow's Memoir, page 184.) But why this provision, if, under a fair construction of the old ones, both parties were restrained from exercising any such right? Why this, if the treaty of 1818 was intended to relate to other rights than those of trading, fishing, and hunting? If neither party could, in the opinion of England, exercise acts of sovereignty or dominion there, without violating the stipulation in the treaty of 1818, why wish to interpose a new provision to that effect?-and why did we reject it as we did, except under the conviction that of right we could, at any time, extinguish Indian titles, colonize the country, establish forts, erect territorial governments, and grant lands, notwithstanding any provision in the treaty; taking care, however, while the treaty existed, to allow all the freedom to trade, fish, and hunt, which it contemplated? All we should have looked to then, and all we ought to look to now, in acting on this subject-being convinced of our right to act-would be the expediency and duty of settling the country, under the exigencies and demands of the whole case. As a mere matter of right, then, under the treaty of 1818, the Oregon could have been occupied and governed by us the next day after that treaty was ratified, as well as a year and a day after we give notice, under the convention of 1827, to terminate the existing arrangements. Another circumstance, which has misled some as to the design and effect of that treaty, is the impression that it provided, in terms, for a joint occupation or possession of the country; or that, at least, such was its necessary operation. But we have already cited the arrangement, and seen that no such words as joint occupation, or joint possession, appear in either of the treaties; nor do they appear in any similar treaties which preceded or followed this with other nations. We have already attempted to show, likewise, that the necessary and natural operation of all these arrangements was commercial, rather than territorial. We now go further, and maintain that a joint occupation or possession of a territory by two Governments, for purposes of title to the soil, or government, or sovereignty, is full of absurdities and peril. Must there be joint laws?-joint judges?-joint grants?- that import. The misfortune has arisen from employing terms in speaking, not used in the treaties themselves, and not applicable to the transaction, and calculated to mislead as to the true extent of the arrangement. The analogy of two parties hav ing some concurrent rights in the fisheries of the grand banks, comes nearer to that of free trade, But even that is not joint occupation or joint possession; and that has been found so difficult and dangerous in practice as to lead, in the end, usually to practical divisions. (28 Par. Debates, page 948.) Nor is a joint occupation or possession necessary to the enjoyment of free trade in any country. Unless a country is savage, or semi-barbarous, ambassadors and consuls, and especially the latter, are sufficient to protect it from within, without any territorial rights. But when a ruder state of society prevent this, factories and forts answer as substitutes. But even those have nothing to do with the title to the soil, or the governing of the country. They are mere commercial securities. While this treaty and its object were fresh in the councils of the country, this view of it must have prevailed with the Executive, or something tantamount; else President Monroe could never have recommended, as early as 1824, the actual erection of forts, and occupation of the territory. The idea that such a step violated the treaty of 1818 seems never to have been entertained by him-though the erection of a military fort by a Government is a much stronger act of sovereignty over a country, than promising land; on which last provision in this bill so much stress is now laid. But the bill which passed the House of Representatives in 1825, by a vote of two to one, provided also to extinguish 900 square miles of Indian title; and neither in that House, nor in the Senate, where the bill was laid on the table by a majority of only two, does any member appear to have dwelt on that as a violation of the treaty. The next year, Mr. Adams officially renewed the recommendation of his predecessor; and the able reports of Mr. Baylies, which followed, are directed entirely to the great importance of the territory, and our clear title to the soil and government of it, rather than to any apprehended objection by England under the treaty of 1818. These may all be deemed cotemporaneous constructions, fortifying the views entertained by myself, or at least favora ble to the right to pass a bill like this, without impugning any treaty stipulation. I have all these messages, reports, and speeches before me, though it is not deemed necessary now to detain the Senate by reading quotations from them. But reasons of expediency operated then against the measure, in the view of one branch of Congress, though the conclusions of the other branch and of the Executive were different. Some such reasons undoubtedly still exist against it; but I think, on examination, that most of the old reasons in this respect have lost much of their force, and that the balance will be found clearly in support of passing a bill like this at the present moment. The question, then, and the only remaining ques tion which I shall discuss, is the expediency of exercising the rights we clearly possess, in the manner now proposed. The paramount reason for extending the operation of our laws into that territory, is, in my view, the protection of our own citizens within its limits. They consist of settlers, traders, hunters, mariners, and travellers. So far as regards us, they are now lawless and defenceless. Hundreds of them have with impunity been pillaged and murdered there within the last twenty years. But they are American citizens no less than we-they are on Ameri can soil no less than we-they are pursuing legal employments no less than we. It seems to me, then, a burning disgrace to our institutions and character to leave them longer in this condition; and it would be far more creditable to renounce the county for ever, than allow it to remain in this disreputable position, and still be a portion of the American Union. The reasons for forts there are of a like character-protection and security. At the mouth of the Columbia, they are needed also for refuge to our whalemen and navy, when crippled by acci dent on the Western and Northwestern seas. The 27TH CONG....3D SESS. interests of the fisheries and commerce are great in those regions, which might thus be aided; but I shall not now fatigue the Senate by particulars as to their amount. The reasons for promises of land to settlers are alike cogent. For many are not likely to expose themselves and families at such an immense distance, and among barbarians, without peculiar inducements; and without more settlers obtained there by such inducements, supplies cannot be furnished to the forts, nor to the vessels of the navy and our whalemen, without great additional expense. Plant forts and settlers there, and throw the shield of your laws not only over them, but over the commerce there; and an increase of our trade within the territory will likewise commence at once. Some of the islands of the Pacific are becoming civilized, and the authorities of one are this very winter knocking at our doors for a recognition of their independence. The coasts of China, too, are now opening to European, and I trust, American enterprise; and both of these circumstances, from the greater contiguity of the Northwest coast to them, will give new impulses to business in that region. This is no sectional question. Our merchants are all directly or indirectly interested in this; our shipbuilders are interested; our fishermen-our enterprising and emigrating farmers are all interested, as well as our hunters and furdealers. Beside this, the character of the whole nation is implicated, if we do not protect the whites, and adopt this or some other course to introduce civilization among the Indians in that territory. We ought to improve the lot of those who are thus placed under our national guardianship. If we claim the country, we must take it with its aboriginal inhabitants. We cannot neglect them, and be justified to the moral judgment of the rest of mankind. We must try to teach them arts and letters. We must protect them, as well as our own people, from aggressions and outrages; such parts of their title as have not been fairly extinguished by individuals, we should amicably purchase from time to time, as we need it, and as they are willing to part with it. Our right, then, to the country being clear-our right to pass a bill like this being clear, without any breach of treaties-our interest to do it being clear-and our duty equally clear, as well as imperative-why halt? Why hesitate? An omission to act now, will throw distrust over the sincerity of our whole claim. The world, as well as England, may well infer that if, under all these circumstances, we longer delay to exercise our rights, to protect our interests, and fulfil our duties, it must arise from some misgiving as to the validity of those rights. If we have not already slept over our claims quite a quarter of a century, it is certain we have not enforced them. A measure like this failed as long ago as 1825, by only two votes in the Senate, though passing the other House by two to one. It failed at that time, apparently, not from doubts as to the title, but from motives of expediency. It is certain that all the leading objections on that score then, have since lessened or disappeared. The outrages committed there, and demanding the prompt application of our laws, have occurred since, in far greater numbers. The encroachments and assumptions by English subjects there, have since multiplied tenfold. The importance of our fisheries and commerce in the Pacific to be aided there, has much enlarged since, beside the new prospects developing in China. The population in the West has since approached nearer, so as to aid more readily in defence. Our ability to send out emigrants has nearly doubled; and last, though not least, the distance (which was by many considered so great as to prevent a representation here, and to lead to a loss of all the capital and people sent there) has almost vanished under the improvements since, in steam. The 4,700 miles from the mouth of the Columbia to Washington, which it was then urged was the distance, and would require all the time of a Representative in Congress to travel over, leaving none for legislation, could ere long probably be passed in one or two months, or in as short a period as the delegates from Louisiana and Mississippi once travelled to and from the seat of Government. But other and still more formidable difficulties start up. Our occupation of the country, it is said, may endanger peace with England. I reply-not so, either necessarily or probably. I have already shown, that rightfully it cannot; and if not right The Bankrupt Law-Mr. M. Brown. fully, is it just or charitable to suppose her more willing than ourselves to bring on a war wrongfully? Does not she need and wish the moral sanction of the world in her movements, as much as we? But it may be said, that though she will make no complaint under the treaty, she may still fall back on her reserved and prior claims, like us, and resist our settlements and jurisdiction. So she may-so she always may to the end of time; and this argument will be as good against our legislation half a century hence, as now; and in this way we never shall be able to take any steps to enforce our rights. If we give notice to abandon the treaty, our position in regard to this argument will be no stronger. For then, as now, the prior reserved rights will start up, like the sown dragon's teeth, into armed men. If this is to be her course, delay, instead of proving useful, will increase the importance of the country and of the controversy. It was so with the contested boundary in the Northeast; and if a question is to be made as to the title, the sooner the better. But, in my view, it will not be her course to resort to violence; for, as before shown, she has admitted our right to be in possession of the country while negotiating. Let us, then, take possession. If that be complained of, negotiation follows. If unable thus to agree, let a third power arbitrate between us. If she refuse that, then we are in possession, and can defend it, and defend our rights against all encroachments, with such means as God and nature have endowed us with. Then, and not now, will be the time for larger expenses and more magnificent plans. Then, and not now, I will consider of the 50,000 rifles to be sent there by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. TAPPAN.] Then, but not now, I will talk with my friend from Arkansas [Mr. SEVIER] about his railroad to the mouth of the Columbia. Then, but not now, I will calculate with the Senator from South Carolina Mr. CALHOUN] about the expense of supplying large armies and fleets in that region by either power. But now, England has no right to complain of our possession, leaving her commerce free; nor any interest in declining negotiation or arbitration, if unable to agree amicably. What occasion, what sufficient inducement can she have to plunge into a hasty and bloody war with us, her best customer, for that naked and remote territory? As a hunting-ground and trading-post for her Hudson Bay Company, which has been almost its only use to her heretofore, its importance becomes less yearly. As an outlet to her sparse population, it is not wanted, in addition to her millions of acres beside in both hemispheres and in all the zones-in the Canadas, India, New Holland, New Zealand, and the West Indies. As a market for her manufactures, it is trifling, and will continue to be so till occupied by a white population. If she expends capital there, it will be without remuneration in the end likewise; as, in time, the whole inevitably falls, (as the Senator before me remarked,) like a ripe peach, into our hands. We are its neighbors, and our institutions are more attractive, and the laws of colonization and empire and conquest are fixed as those of the solar systein; and she, no more than any other nation, can claim an exemption from their destiny. But, though in favor of the present bill-on the ground of right, interest, and duty-yet, as before remarked, should not deem it either our interest or duty to enlarge the measure now, as some suggest, and to incur any expenses not immediately demanded by the necessities of the case. In the present condition of the treasury-with a deficit of six to eight millions staring us in the face, on the Secretary's own report for the next year and a half, if he redeems the temporary debt, as has been pledged and promised; and with the prospect of a revenue still more diminished than he estimates, by two or three millions,-I surely would not run into any expenses not required by national duty and honor. But those thus required I would vote, at all hazards, and in all cases. Nor is it necessary that even the expense contemplated by this bill should be incurred, till a survey is made for the site of forts, and, if the Executive or Congress pleases, a notice given to end the treaty, and the stipulated time of a year finished, before ac. tually erecting them. All apprehensions of any pretence being made by England of a departure from the treaty, by adopting the measure in the bill, could thus be removed, and yet the bill pass. But I do not feel so much inclined to travel out of H. of Reps. the way to conciliate that haughty power by any over-caution, as some may. Nor do I justify my vote, however easy it might be, by any of her previous laws or encroachments in respect to this territory. On the contrary, I shall vote for it under a sense of duty towards our own territory, our own citizens, and our great national interests, without any reference to foreign misbehavior or foreign menaces. I would not wish for hostilities, nor commit a wrong; but, in the path of doing right--armed strong in honesty-I would move onward, from my own impulses, my own feeling; and neither halt nor turn aside, from dread of wrong and violence by others. By such a course, under all the circumstances before mentioned, there is much less real danger of national collision and war, than by keeping up such a state of things as exists at present-two warlike nations, with numerous tribes of savages grouped together in one and the same country; two if not three sets of claims to territory and Sovereignty; jealous, and vindictive, and rival subjects together in pursuit of the same game and trade; no territorial laws or magistrates; no boundaries; weekly plunder and murder. This is the worst possible condition, to last longer; and is unworthy the civilization, prudence, and intelligence of either nation. Though our own people, in many quarters, are impatient to make a more secure lodgment within the territory, I do not entertain such fears from this, or the interests of many of the old and new States, as many do. Instead of the old States being depopulated by it-or the new, as some seem to fear the distance, dangers, and privations will make the progress of emigration slow, and rather relieve both the old and new States from some of the most restless of their population, than strip them either of much capital or industry. Many of our fathers came, originally, to the Atlantic coast, to better their condition; and our sons, going to the Pacific from the same motive, will no more injure us than they injured their former homes. The emigration of the former here has not weakened England, or France, or Germany; nor will that of the latter weaken us. Indeed, they will still remain on American soil; and the stars and stripes of our flag will still wave over them, it is hoped, to the end of time. Nor do I dread any danger to the Union, or the relative power of the East and West, or of the South and North, by this measure. I have no gorgeous and sudden hopes on this subject. The progress of settlements will not be rapid. The land bounty will, of course, be withdrawn the moment there is population enough there for safety and supplies. In the last century, our people have, to be sure, spread from Albany to St. Louis; and thence nearly to the western borders of Missouri and Iowa. But even now our permanent settlers are six or seven hundred miles from the crest of the Rocky Mountains, and thousands of miles from the mouth of the Columbia. We are not Tartars enough to wander much faster or further than the axe and the plough can clear the way. And if, a half century or a century hence, it becomes a question-which I hope never will be the case-whether the Union shall not protect all between the Atlantic and the Pacific, and where the division line shall be drawn, I am not now to be deterred from a support of this bill by any fear that it may hasten that remote catastrophe, or throw the line west to the Rocky Mountains, or the Mississippi, or the Alleganies; rather than south, to the Potomac, or elsewhere, between the South and the North. I go into no such speculations; nor am I * fearful as to events so remote, and, it is believed, so improbable. On the other hand, if really probable in the natural course of civilization, it is vain for us to attempt to shun or delay them by such an impotent measure as neglecting longer to legislate suitably for our own territory, and the protection of our own subjects. SPEECH OF MR. M. BROWN, OF TENNESSEE. In the House of Representatives, January 3, 1843- Mr. SPEAKER: It is neither my purpose nor desire to enter the wide field of general politics unexpectedly opened by this debate, but to confine myself strictly to the pending question of repeal. N |