27TH CONG....3D SESS.

they?-name them."] Sir, I have not time now to enumerate them; but, to satisfy the gentleman, I now pledge him, that if, after my political friends shall have nominated their candidate for President, they do not give them to the world in black and white-if they do not write them out in bold relief, so that he who runs may read-or if they should attempt to play the game of "no more disclosures for the public eye"--then, before God, and in the face of the people, I will denounce them, and refuse to act with them. Does this satisfy the gentleman?

Yes, sir, in due time our banner will be unfurled to the breeze. The mouths of our prophets will be open; and, as I said before, if John Tyler can respond to these principles, one and all, and receive the nomination of the Democratic convention, he will be good enough for me, notwithstanding the corruption that surrounds him.

Some of John Tyler's acts I most heartily approve; and I am not going to attempt to close the Democratic temple against him, or any other person who chooses to come. But there are, I confess, some of those surrounding him, who, I think, would make an awkward appearance in our ranks. Only think, for a moment, of an Administration with Daniel Webster and John C. Spencer for its high priests, endeavoring to recommend itself to the Democracy! Sir, you might as well attempt to graft a crab-tree on an orange-stock. Yet, Mr. Webster has said somewhere-at "Patchogue," I believethat he was a Democrat--a Democrat of the Jefferson school. It may be so; but I was not taught to be. lieve Webster a Democrat. I confess I have strong prejudices against the man; but, notwithstanding I have looked upon him as a political leper, yet I confess that, since he has been so liberally denounced by his old cronies-by those who used to call him the "god-like"-those who ate bread with him-and, above all, those who drank his wine on the night preceding the passage of the bankrupt law, since these men have denounced him, I have thought that possibly there was something good in him. These denunciations have caused me to look a little closer into his political history; and if, upon full examination, I find one good actone single green spot to rest my eye on-I will consent that he may come into our party: provided, always, he comes as a private; as a "capting," he cannot come.

As to bargains, I tell my colleague, [Mr. THOMPSON,] on behalf of at least the Democracy of the Hoosier State, there will be none made. But at the same time that we refuse to assume the responsibility of this Administration, we will, by no means, refuse to aid the Administration to carry on the Government. We will not refuse to support a good measure, simply because it is recommended by a man in whose election we had no agency. I, for one, will vote for every measure I think right, let who will recommend it; much less will I join in an attempt to tumble my Government to pieces, merely for the gratification of seeing John Tyler buried under its ruins.

After the general route sustained by the Whig party since the last adjournment of Congress, had hoped they would have been taught wisdom, and somewhat changed their haughty dictatorial tone. Whipping is beneficial generally on bad children, and I thought it would have done the Whigs good. Never did a party so much need taking down. None was ever so haughty, so presuming, so self-conceited. Well do I remember the declaration of the imperious tenant of Ashland, that the Democrats were like criminals on the hangman's cart, waiting only for the order of execution. Yes, sir, no longer ago than the extra session, this was the language of the master here, and repeated by the man the country over. Indeed, it appeared to me at the extra session, and a part of the last, that the entire party had tried how they could act the tyrant. All discussion, all freedom of debate, was effectually set aside-the gag introduced-the hour rule applied--and this hall, sacred to liberty, made to play second fiddle to caucus rooms. Let me here put in a few words in exculpation of some of those who aided in this work of furies I do not accuse my Whig friends with having perpetrated all the mischiefs of which they were the authors, out of mere wantonness. It grew partly out of ignorance of their duties. They knew not how to manage. They had been a long time out of power-they had been running on grass, (to use a farmer's phrase,) until they had become lean and lank. The conse. quence was, when they got into clover, their course

The Oregon Bill-Mr. Benton.

was constantly marked by the most enormous excesses. Such another set of legislators I hope never again to see.

At the commencement of this session, I hoped, from their conduct, that the late elections had had their desired effect on the Whigs in this House. Under this impression, I wrote to numbers of my friends that the Whigs were quite tame, and disposed to attend to public business. If, however, it shall turn out that destruction is not sufficient, but that nothing else than annihilation will do this party, I hope, at least, that those who are yet sober on political matters will take the warning which the prostration of the late Whig party gives to the world; and, in future, let politicians here make the laws, and the people will make the Presidents.

In defence of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] against the charge of the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. EVERETT,] I am bound to say that this party and personal debate did not originate with the gentleman from Massachusetts. If my memory serves me, it originated with the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. ARNOLD,] who opened up the floodgates of his wrath against the Administration, and poured sluices of billingsgate upon the heads of John Tyler and his friends; a liberal share of which was meted out to what he calls "the sub-tranian Democracy."

Thus, you see, this debate originated on the opposite side of the House. Indeed, I have never known one of this character that did not; and I now challenge any person within the sound of my voice to mention the occasion, since this Congress commenced its first session, when any member of the Democratic party commenced a party debate that consumed the time of the House one hour. There is no such instance. Heretofore, during this session, the Whigs, smarting under their late castigation, have forborne to enter into a personal or party debate. Within the last few days, however, they have shown an evident disposition to launch out into their former practices of violence and vituperation. Is it, then, to be expected that the particular friends of the President will sit still, and hear themselves and their friends violently and wantonly assailed, without making a proper reply and suitable resentment? The whole course of my Whig friends here seems to me to be directed to sustaining the power which they by accident obtained; and I will be excused for saying that, unless they alter their course, and that speedily, such an accident will never happen to them again.

One word further upon the subject of a coalition between the Administration and the Democrats. I see no signs of such a union. There seems to me as much prospect of the ultra Whigs-the "white Charlies" coalescing with the Democrats, as there is of Tyler and his friends. I hope, therefore, that I, for one, shall not be subjected to the suspicion of bargain and intrigue. It was the supposed, if not real, bargain between the venerable ex-President now on this floor, and the "Western Star," which caused the sun of Ashland to set, and set forever. With this example of results before me, I pray my name may never be tainted with the suspicion of a political bargain. I am now just starting out in political life, and I cannot say where I may want to go yet;-perhaps I may aspire to a seat in the Senate--perhaps to the Vice Presidency, or even the Presidency. There is no telling where the untamed ambition of a native Hoosier may lead him; but, come of me what may, I pray that I may never have attached to me even a suspicion of political bargain and sale.

One concluding remark to my colleague and the gentleman from Massachusetts, in relation to the geographical divisions which they hope will spring up amongst the Democrats. Both these gentlemen seem delighted with this idea. These gentlemen know nothing of the "hooks of steel" that bind Democrats each to the other, and all together. If they did, they would know that the affections of that

party towards their public men are not in the least degree dependent upon geographical location. Democrats know no distinctions of geography.1 The links and bonds that bind them together are sufficiently large to embrace a hemisphere within its circle. Let the nomination once be madethere will be no difference whether the candidate comes from the North or the South, the East or the West. Nor will it be material who opposes--the Whigs, the "white Charlies," or even the "constitutional fact," or all these together. Give us an open field and a fair fight, and we will lick them, one and all-else I am no prophet,

Senate.

SPEECH OF MR. BENTON,

OF MISSOURI,

In Senate, Thursday, January 12, 1843-On the
Oregon bill.

Mr. BENTON said, in substance, that the objections to this bill grew out of the clause granting land to the settlers, not so much on account of the grants themselves, as on account of the exclusive jurisdiction over the country, which the grants would seem to imply. This was the objection; for no one defended the title of the British to one inch square of the valley of Oregon. The Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. SEVIER,] who has just spoken, had well said that this was an objection to the whole bill; for the rest would be worth nothing, without these grants to the settlers. Nobody would go there without the inducement of land. The British had planted a power there-the Hudson Bay Fur Company-in which the old Northwest Company was merged; and this power was to them in the NEW WORLD what the EAST INDIA COMPANY was to them in the OLD WORLD: it was an arm of the Government, and did everything for the Government which policy, or treaties, prevented it from doing for itself. This company was settling and colonizing the Columbia for the British Government; and we wish American citizens to settle and colonize it for us. The British Government gives inducement to this company. It gives them trade, commerce, an exclusive charter, laws, and national protection. We must give inducement also; and our inducement must be land and protection. Grants of land will carry settlers there; and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. TAPPAN] was treading in the tracks of Mr. Jefferson (perhaps without hav ing read his recommendation, although he has read much) when he proposed, in his speech of yesterday, to plant 50,000 settlers, with their 50,000 rifles, on the banks of the Oregon. Mr. Jefferson had proposed the same thing in regard to Louisiana. He proposed that we should settle that vast domain when we acquired it; and for that purpose, that donations of land should be made to the first 30,000 settlers who should go there. This was the right doctrine, and the old doctrine. The white rac were a land-loving people, and had a right to possess it, because they used it according to the intentions of the CREATOR. The white race went for land, and they will continue to go for it, and will go where they can get it. Europe, Asia, and America have been settled by them in this way. All the States of this Union have been so settled. Th principle is founded in their nature, and in Ge command; and it will continue to be obeyed. T valley of the Columbia is a vast field open to the s tler. It is ours, and our people are beginning to go upon it. They go under the expectation of getting land; and that expectation must be confirmed to them. This bill proposes to confirm it; and if it fails in this particular, it fails in all. There is nothing left to induce emigration; and emigration is the only thing which can save the country from the British, acting through their powerful agentthe HUDSON BAY COMPANY.

Mr. B. said he would not restate the American title to this country: it had been well done by others who had preceded him in the debate. He would only give a little more development to two points— the treaties of 1803 and 1819; the former with France, by which we acquired Louisiana; the latter with Spain, by which we acquired all her rights on the north west coast of America north of 42 degrees. By the first of these treaties we became a party to the 10th article of the treaty of Utrecht, between France and England; the treaty of peace of 1714 which terminated the wars of Queen Anne and Louis XIV, and settled all their differences of every kind in Europe and America, and undertook to prevent the recurrence of future differences between them. The 10th article of this treaty applied to their settlements and territories in North America, and directed commissaries to be appointed to mark and define their possessions. These commissaries did their work. They drew a line from ocean to ocean, to separate the French and British dominions, and to prevent future encroachments and collisions: This line began on the coast of Labrador, and followed a course slightly south of west, to the centre of North America, leaving the British settlements of Hudson's Bay to the north, and the French Canadian possessions to the south. This line took for a landmark the Lake of the Woods, which was then believed to be due east from the head of the Missis

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

sippi; and from that point took the 49th parallel of north latitude indefinitely to the west. The lan

guage of the line is "indefinitely;" and this established the northern boundary of Louisiana, and erected a wall beyond which future French settlements could not cross to the north, nor British to the south.

As purchasers of Louisiana, the treaty of 1803 made us party to the 10th article of the treaty of Utrecht, and made the 49th parallel the same to us and the British, which it had been to the French and the British: it became a wall which neither could pass, so far as it depended upon that line. This the British saw, and quickly went to work to abrogate or mutilate a line which presented an impassable barrier to their designs upon the Columbia river. The American, Captain Gray, had first discovered that river at its mouth, in 1790; Lewis and Clarke had discovered it from its head to the sea in 1804-5; and these discoveries of contiguous territory gave us the rights of first discovery over the whole river, in addition to the rights derived from treaties. But no sooner had Captain Gray discovered this great river than the British coveted it, and sent out McKenzie to discover it over again, and especially to find its head in high northern latitudes. To do this, McKenzie, proceeding from Canada, bore far to the north; missed all the waters of the Columbia; fell upon the Tacoutche Terse; and struck the ocean five hundred miles (following the coast) to the north of the Columbia. Thus, this attempt to hatch a claim to this river, by discovering it at the head, after we had discovered it at the mouth, entirely failed; and the British were left without a pretext for claiming our property. In this dilemina, McKenzie proposed to make short work of it with the United States: he proposed to seize the river, and to hold it, because it was necessary to the British scheme of trade and domination in that quarter; and to expel all "American adventurers" from it. His advice was in these words:

"The Russians, who first discovered that along the coasts of Asia no useful or regular navigation existed, opened an interior communication by rivers, &c., and through that long and wide extended continent, to the strait that separates Asia from Ameri. ca, over which they passed to the American continent. Our situation is at length in some degree similar to theirs-the nonexistence of a practicable passage by sea, and the existence of one through the continent, are clearly proved; and it requires only the countenance and support of the British Government to increase, in a very ample proportion, this national advantage, and secure the trade of that country to its subjects.

By the rivers which discharge themselves into Hudson's Bay, at Port Nelson, it is proposed to carry on the trade to their source at the head of the Saskatchiwine river, which rises in the Rocky Mountains, not cight degrees of longitude from the Pacific ocean. The Columbia flows from the same mountains, and discharges itself into the Pacific in north latitude 36 degrees 20 minutes. Both of them are capable of receiving ships at their mouths, and are navigable throughout for boats. But

whatever course may be taken from the Atlantic, the Columbia is the line of communication from the Pacific ocean, pointed out by nature, as it is the only navigable river in the whole extent of Vancouver's minute survey of the coast. Its banks also form the first level country in all the southern extent of continental coast from Cook's entry, and, consequently, the most northern situation suited for the residence of a civilized people. By opening this intercourse between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and forming regular establishments through the interior, and at both extremes, as well as along the coasts and islands, the entire command of the fur-trade of North America might be obtained from latitude 45 to the pole, except that portion of it which the Russians have in the Pacific. To this may be added the fishing in both seas, and the markets in the four quarters of the globe. Such would be the field for com mercial enterprise; and incalculable would be the produce of it, when supported by the operations of that credit and capital which Great Britain so eminently possesses. Then would this country begin to be remunerated for the expense it has sustained in discovering and surveying the coast of the Pacific ocean, which is at present left to American adventurers, who, without regularity or capital, or the desire of conciliating future confidence, look altogether to the interests of the moment. Such ad. venturers (and many of them, as I have been informed, have been very successful) would instantly disappear before a wellregulated trade.

Many

political reasons, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, must present themselves to the mind of every man acquainted with the enlarged system and capacities of British commerce, in support of the measures which I have briefly suggested as promising the most important advantages to the trade of the United Kingdom. Let

the line begin where it may on the Mississippi, it must be con. tinued west, till it terminates in the Pacific ocean to the south of the Columbia river."

This was the proposition of McKenzie; and from that moment the labors of the British Government became systematic and incessant to seize the Columbia. Their first step in this work was to abrogate, or mutilate, the established boundary of the 49th degree of north latitude; for, while that line stood, they could not approach within three degrees of the mouth of the Columbia, which was in 46 degrees, British diplomacy now went to work

The Oregon Bill—Mr. Benton.

to destroy this line, at least beyond the Rocky Mountains; and labored indefatigably at it, until they accomplished their design.

Louisiana was acquired in 1803. In the very instant of signing the treaty which brought us that province, another treaty was signed in London, (without a knowledge of what was done in Paris,) fixing, among other things, the line from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi. This treaty, signed by Mr. Rufus King and Lord Hawkesbury, was rejected by Mr. Jefferson, without reference to the Senate, on account of the fifth article, (which related to the line between the Lake of the Woods and the head of the Mississippi,) for fear it might compromise the northern boundary of Louisiana and the line of 49 degrees. In this negotiation of 1803, the British made no attempt on the line of the 49th degree, because it was not then known to them that we had acquired Louisiana; but Mr. Jef ferson, having a knowledge of this acquisition, was determined that nothing should be done to compromise our rights, or to unsettle the boundaries established under the treaty of Utrecht.

Another treaty was negotiated with Great Britain in 1807, between Messrs. Monroe and William Pinckney on one side, and Lords Holland and Auckland on the other. The English were now fully possessed of the fact that we had acquired Louisiana, and become a party to the line of 49 degrees; and they set themselves openly to work to destroy that line. The correspondence of the ministers shows the pertinacity of these attempts; and the instructions of Mr. Adams, in 1818, (when Secretary of State, under Mr. Monroe,) to Messrs. Rush and Gallatin, then in London, charged with negotiating a convention on points left unsettled at Ghent, condense the history of the mutual propositions then made. Finally, an article was agreed upon, in which the British succeeded in mutilating the line, and stopping it at the Rocky Mountains. This treaty of 1807 shared the fate of that of 1803, but for a different reason. It was rejected by Mr. Jefferson, without reference to the Senate, because it did not contain an explicit renunciation of the pretension of impressment!

At Ghent the attempt was renewed: the arrest of the line at the Rocky Mountains was agreed upon, but the British coupled with their proposition a demand for the free navigation of the Mississippi, and access to it through the territories of the United States; and this demand occasioned the whole article to be omitted. The Ghent treaty was signed without any stipulation on the subject of the line along the 49th degree, and that point became

a.

. principal object of the ministers charged with completing at London, in 1818, the subjects unfinished at Ghent in 1814. Thus the British were again foiled; but, true to their design, they persevered and accomplished it in the convention signed at London in 1818. That convention arrested the line at the mountains, and opened the Columbia to the joint occupation of the British; and, being ratified by the United States, it has become binding and obligatory on the country. But it is a point not to be overlooked, or undervalued, in this case, that it was in the year 1818 that this arrestation of the line took place; that up to that period it was in full force in all its extent, and, consequently, in full force to the Pacific ocean; and a complete bar (leaving out all other barriers) to any British acquisition, by discovery, south of 49 degrees in North America.

The other point in our title, to which I wish to give a little more development than it has received from other speakers, is, its derivation under the treaty with Spain of 1819. By that treaty the United States succeeded to all the rights of Spain on the northwest coast of America north of 42 degrees. These rights, according to the memoir of the Spanish minister, Don Onis, extended to the Russian possessions-the British having nothing on that coast! This was the representation of the Spanish minister; and with this, the fact of the case agreed. The Nootka Sound treaty and controversy of 1790 had decided that point! It decided that the British had no right to Nootka, a place four degrees north of the Columbia, and no way connected with it: and it ended in obtaining for the British the privilege, and nothing but the privilege, of fishing and hunting along the northwest coast, and erecting the temporary huts, which the pursuit of these occupations might require. Colonization or settlement was renounced. The treaty itself, especially the 3d and the 6th articles, will prove this; and the parliamentary debates of the day corres

Senate.

pond with the words of the treaty. As a fact, that treaty nullifies all British claim on the northwest coast; as a law, (if not abrogated by war,) it would still confine them to the pursuit of hunting and fishing. The treaty of 1819, by which we acquired all the Spanish title north of 42°, has given us all the benefits of the Nootka Sound treaty, both as a fact, and as a law; and, tested by either, the British are excluded from the northwest coast of America, for all the purposes of settlement or colonization.

Having given this development to our title as derived from the treaties of 1803 and 1819 with France and Spain, Mr. B. proceeded to show the nullity of the British pretension, and the tortious nature of the possession which they had acquired on the Columbia river. For this purpose he took several positions, and stated them as points which he meant to establish by proof. The first was, that up to the year 1818, the British never pretended to state any claim, or any shadow or color of claim, of any kind whatever, to the Columbia river. The second position was, that in the year 1818 they suggested title under the discoveries of Captain Cook, and under purchases made from Indians south of the Columbia prior to the American revolution; but showed nothing to sustain these empty suggestions. The third position was, that in 1826 they abandoned the idle suggestions of 1818, and took refuge, for the first time, under the Nootka Sound treaty; and, in the fourth place, he undertook to show that their possession of the Columbia was intrusive and tortious-a trespass, and a fraud upon our pre-existing possession of the same river; and a wrong and aggression which the Government of the United States should resist and repulse.

In support of these positions, Mr. B. read copiously from Mr. Adams's instructions of 1818 to the American ministers in London who negotiated the convention of that year, and from a letter from Mr. John Jacob Astor of 1813 to the Secretary of State, (Mr. Monroe,) to be laid before President Madison. These documents established, as he maintained, all the points he had stated, and showed the nullity and futility, as well as the impudence, of the British pre

tension.

"From the earnestness with which the British Government now return to the object of fixing this boundary, there is reason to believe that they have some other purpose connected with it, which they do not avow, but which, in their estimation, gives it an importance not belonging to it, considered in itself." The new pretension, however, of disputing our title to the settlement at the mouth of the Columbia river, either indicates a design, on their part, to encroach, by new establishments of their own, upon the 49th parallel of latitude, south of which they can have no valid claim; or it manifests a jealousy of the United States--a desire to check the pro. gress of our settlements, of which it might have been supposed that experience would, before this day, have relieved them." "Their projects for the line, both in the negotiations of Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney in 1807, and at Ghent in 1814, were to take the 49th parallel of latitude from the Lake of the Woods, west, as far as the territories of the United States extend in that direction, with a caveat against its extension to the South Sea, or beyond the Stony Mountains. Upon which two observations are to be made: first, that it is uncertain whether any part of the Lake of the Woods is in lati. tude 49; and, secondly, that they always affected to apply the indefinite of the extension, "as far as the territories extend," to the territories of the United States, and not to those of Great Britain-leaving a nest egg for future pretensions south of latitude 49." "From the late correspondence with the Spanish minister, (Don Onis,) it appears that the claim of Spain upon the shores of the South Sea extends to the 56th degree of north latitude: but there is a Russian settlement in 55, besides a temporary lodgment connected with it as far south as 42. The pretensions of the British may, on this occasion, be disclosed. We know not precisely what they are; nor have they explained the grounds, or the motives, upon which they contest our right to the settlement called Astoria, formed before the late war, and broke up by the British sloop of war Racoon, in the course of it." "As the British Government admits, explicitly, their obligation, under the treaty of Ghent, to restore the post, there can be no question with regard to the United States to resume it." "We do not per

ceive how, or why, this question should be referred to two commissioners of the respective nations; and as Russia herself has pretensions on that coast, it deserves the consideration of both parties, whether the ultimate determination in the almost unavoidable case of a difference between the commissioners could with propriety be referred to her sovereign." "The expedient itself, of submitting questions of territorial rights and boundaries, in discussion between two nations, to the decision of a third, was unusual, if not ontirely new; and should the contingency occur, will probably encounter difficul ties of execution not foreseen at the time that the stipulation was made resorting to it. The subjects in controversy are of a nature too intricate and complicated, requiring on the part of the arbitrator a patieuce of investigation and research, historical, political, legal, geographical, and astronomical, for which it is impossible to conceive that the sovereign of a great empire could personally bestow the time."

Having read these extracts from Mr. Adams's letter of instructions of July, 1818, Mr. B. commented upon them to sustain his several positions in relation to the nullity, inconsistency, and bad faith of the British pretension. He particularly

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

relied upon these expressions: "The new pretension of disputing our title to the Columbia river"-"design on their part to encroach by new establishments south of 49 degrees"-"desire to check the progress of our settlements"--"jealousy of the United States"-"affected to apply the indefinite extension of the limit to our territories, and not to those of Great Britain"--"leave a nest-egg for future pretensions south of 49"--"the Spanish minister claims for Spain to 56"-"the pretensions of the British Government may, on this occasion, be disclosed"-"we know not precisely what they are." Upon these expressions, and others, Mr. B. relied, and commented, to show that, up to the date of that letter of Mr. Adams, (to wit, July 28th, 1818,) the British had shown or suggested no claim of any kind whatever to any part of the valley of the Columbia; that they were trusting to the arts of diplomacy to generate something which could be hatched into a claim; and that their design was to encroach upon our settlements south of 49.

This was the state of the question in July, 1818, when the negotiation was commenced in London, which ended in the convention of October of that year, for a ten years' joint possession of all the country west of the Rocky Mountains. The negotiation was conducted by Messrs. Gallatin and Rush, and, of course, was calculated to constrain the British to make a disclosure of the grounds of their pretensions. Mr. Adams had notified them that, on this occasion, the British claim must be disclosed; and disclosed it was! and what a disclosure! Listen to it, as communicated to our Government by Messrs. Gallatin and Rush in their despatch of October 20, 1818. Here it is:

"The British plenipotentiaries asserted that former voyages, and principally that of Captain Cook, gave to Great Britain the rights derived from discovery; and they alluded to purchases from the natives south of the river Columbia, which they alleged to have been made prior to the American revolution."

This was the claim disclosed; and in support of this, not one name, fact, or specification of any kind was submitted. Discovery and purchase was the ground of their pretension. But who discovered, and when, and from whom the purchase was made, the British commissioners could not tell. They did not attempt to tell; but proposed to compromise the question by taking the river for the boundary, and getting the use of the harbor at its mouth. Their proposition to this effect is thus stated, in the same despatch, by Messrs. Gallatin and Rush:

"They did not make any formal proposition for a boundary, but intimated that the river itself was the most convenient that could be adopted, and that they would not agree to any that did not give them the harbor at the mouth of the river in common with the United States."

This (said Mr. B.) was their intimation for a boundary; and in this intimation we recognise the precise policy which McKenzie had marked out, and by which the British were to become the masters of the Columbia, and to expel the "American adventurers" from it.

That

Our commissioners did not agree to this boundary, and to this joint-tenantcy in the harbor; but they signed the convention of 1818, according to their instructions, which arrested the line of the 49th degree at the Rocky Mountains, and gave a joint occupation of the country beyond the mountains to both parties. Their instructions authorized them to do this: and the point to be now noted is, that up to the ratification of that convention the line of 49 degrees, as established under the treaty of Utrecht, to define the possessions and limit the acquisitions by discovery of France and Great Britain in North America, remained in full force! line was in force until we ratified the convention; and, by that line, without regard to other barriers, Great Britain was barred out from all the valley of the Columbia, and all the coast of North America south of 49 degrees. The convention abrogated the line-unhappily abrogated it-from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific ocean. But it did so with a reservation, that the claims of the parties were not to be affected by it. The abrogation was unfortunate; but the reservation was a stipulation to prevent mischief-a stipulation to baffle the designs of subtle diplomacy, always seeking to deposite the seeds of a new contestation in the simulated settlement of an old one; and it was equivalent to an express declaration that the British claim was to be made no better, and ours to be made no worse, by this arrestation of the line of 49 degrees, and the joint occupation of the Columbia, which resulted from it.

We have now (said Mr. B.) traced the British

The Oregon Bill-Mr. Benton.

pretension up to the conclusion of the convention of 1818; and we have seen that, up to the month of July of that year, they had stated or suggested no claim, or even shadow or color of claim, to the Columbia; that, being pressed, they then intimated a claim resting on DISCOVERY and PURCHASE, but without stating a single particular by which this pretended discovery and purchase could be brought to the touchstone of proof and reason. They were evidently absurd, and even ridiculous. All the world knows that Capt. Cook never saw the Columbia-all the world knows that no other British navigator ever saw it, until after Capt. Gray showed it to them!-and, as for the Indian purchases south of that river, before the Revolution, it is a story of a man in the moon! and has no name, date, place, sum, sign, trace, circumstance, fact, or supposition to rest upon!

The pretension, then, of this right by discovery, and by purchase, so tardily brought forward in October, 1818, are absurdities which the British could not, and did not, support; and which they have since totally abandoned. This abandonment was made in 1827-at the time when the convention of 1818, being about to expire upon its limitation of ten years-was renewed until one of the parties chose to terminate it by giving twelve months' notice. It was made by Messrs. Huskisson and Addington, in their formal negotiations with Mr. Gallatin for the renewal of the convention of 1818. In that negotiation, they delivered a paper to the American negotiator, in which the British claim to the Columbia is referred-and for the first time referred-to the Nootka Sound convention of 1790! Hear it!

"The rights of Great Britain are recorded and defined in the convention of 1790: they embrace the right to navigate the wa ters of those countries-to settle in and over any part of them, and to trade with the inhabitants and occupiers of the same. These rights have been peaceably exercised ever since the date of that convention; that is, for a period of nearly forty years. Under that convention, valuable British interests have grown up in that quarter."

Here is a complete abandonment of the claim founded on discovery and purchase before the Revolution! That claim, set up for the first time in 1818, is abandoned in 1827!--and the Nootka Sound convention, which had never been vouched before, is then paraded as the instrument in which the "rights" of Great Britain are "recorded" and "defined;" and under which valuable “British" interests had grown up in that quarter. This is, at least, an admission that the discovery and purchase brought forward as the foundation, and the sole foundation, of the British claim in 1818, were unfounded and supposititious! and not only relieves us from all further attention to such intimations, but gives us the benefit of a legal maxim, as universal in its application as it is just and reasonable in its principle!--that maxim which discredits the whole title, in support of which an untruth has been adduced.

But the British "right" to the Columbia now rests upon the Nootka Sound convention; since the year of our Lord 1827, their claim to this country has become a "right," and this "right" has estab lished itself in the musty record of the Nootka Sound convention! Be it so! We will quickly see what that convention is worth to them. For that purpose we may look to the convention itself, or to the character of it given in the British House of Commons at the time of its negotiation. The first article of the treaty restored the British to their fishing and hunting privileges and buildings in Nootka Sound. The third article granted the limited privilege of fishing and hunting on certain other parts of the coast; and the sixth article limited the buildings which might be erected to the temporary huts necessary for the hunters and fishermen. This was the treaty. Listen to Mr. Fox. After denouncing the treaty as one of CONCESSIONS, and not of ACQUISITIONS, on the part of Great Britain, he goes on to say:

"Our right before, was to settle in any part of the south or northwest coast of America, not fortified against us by previous occupancy; and we are now restricted to settle in certain places only, and under certain restrictions. This was an important concession on our part."

"Our right of making settlements was not, as now, a right to build huts, but to plant colonies, if we thought proper." "By the 34 article, we are au thorized to navigate the Pacific ocean and South seas, unmolested, for the purpose of trading with the natives. But, after this pompous recognition of right to navigation, fishery, and commerce, comes ano her article, (the sixth,) which takes away the right of landing and erecting even temporary huts, for any purpose but that of carrying on the fishery; and amounts to a complete dereliction of all right to settle in any way for the purpose of commerce with the natives."

This was the language of Mr. Fox; and under

Senate.

this language Mr. Pitt (the author of the convention) sunk down and admitted that no new rights were gained under the treaty! that nothing had been gained but the acknowledgment of the pre-existing right of fishing, trading, and navigating the Pacific ocean.! Hear him:

"In answer to this, Mr. Pitt maintained that, though what this country had gained consisted not of new rights, it certainly did of new advantages. We had before a right to the Southern whale fishery, and a right to navigate and carry on fisheries in the Pacific ocean, and to trade on the coasts of any part of Northwest America; but that right not only had not been acknowledged, but disputed and resisted; whereas, by the Convention, it was secured to us-a circumstance which, though no new right, was a new advantage."

This (said Mr. B.) is the Nootka Sound treaty, which is now relied upon to establish the British right to the Columbia. Under this treaty they have taken possession of the Columbia, although 500 miles from Nootka, and having no connexion with

it.

Under this treaty a British colony is growing up there; and in protection of this colony, the Brit. ish now declare their determination to maintain their ground. The same paper from Mr. Huskis son and Mr. Addington, which vouched the Nootka convention for the record and the definition of their "right," proceeds to say:

"Under that convention, valuable British interests have grown up in these countries.

In the interior of the country in question, the subjects of Great Britain have had for many years settlements and trading posts Several of these posts are on the tributary streams of the Columbia; several upon the Columbia itself; some to the northward, and others to the southward of that river. And they nav. igate the Columbia as the sole channel for the conveyance of their produce to the British stations nearest the sea, and for the shipments of it from thence to Great Britain. It is also by the Columbia that these posts and settlements receive their annual supplies from Great Britain.

To the interests and establishments which British industry and enterprise have created, Great Britain owes protection. That protection will be given both as regards EET» TLEMENT and FREEDOM OF TRADE and NAVIGATION, with every attention not to infringe the co-ordinate rights of the United States; it being the desire of the British Government, so long as the joint occupancy continues, to regulate its own obliga tions by the same rules which govern the obligations of every other occupying party."

Have grown up there, and will be protected! British interests have grown up on the Columbia; and the British Government owes protection to these interests, and will give it! This is now the language of British ministers; and this is what we have got for forty years' forbearance to assert our title! The nest-egg laid by British diplomacy, has undergone incubation, and has hatched, and has produced a full-grown bird-a game cock-which has clapped his wings and crowed defiance in the face of the American eagle! and this poor eagle, if a view could be got of him as he stood during the "informal conferences" between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, would be found (no doubt) to have stuck his head under his wing, and hung out the white and craven feather.

British interests have grown up on both sides of the Columbia-to the south as well as to the north of the river-and it is the intention of the British Government to protect the whole. So say Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Addington. But this is diplo macy-modern diplomacy-equivalent to finesse. The south of the Columbia has not been seized to be retained, but to be given up! The north is to be retained, for that is the commanding bank. The south is only seized to be given up as an equivalent, according to the modern system of compromising, so successfully introduced in the case of Maine. Seize all! then give back half! call this a compromise! and there will be people (for the minds of men are various)-there will be people to applaud the fine arrangement, and to thank God for such a happy deliverance from war. No, sir, no. This is a joke about holding on to the south bank. The settlements made there are for surrender; not for retention. They are made there to be given up as equivalents for what is taken from us on the north; and thus settle the Columbia question according to the precedent of Maine.

But the settlements on the north bank: their protection is no joke. The British mean to hold on to them, for they command the remainder. The Nootka Sound controversy is to have the effect upon us which it could not have upon the Spaniard forty years ago. In vain the lighted match was brandished over the British cannon in the affair of Nootka in 1790; in vain immediate and bloody war was threatened. The Spanish Government though old, decrepid, and tottering under the feeb sway of Charles IV. and the favorite Godoy, ba yet too much of the Castilian blood in it to prefe dishonor to war. They prepared for war! and the

British, seeing that the Don could not be bullied, relinquished their high pretensions of colonization and settlement, and accepted the humble privilege of fishing, and hunting, and sailing the high seas. This is the way the old Nootka controversy between Spain and England ended fifty years ago. After the experiment which the British have just made of our peace-loving temper, it is not to be supposed that we shall get out of the new Nootka scrape without seeing the match applied to the priming, or having the cup of dishonor held to our lips until we drink it to the dregs.

The origin and the character of these establishments on the Columbia, which the British Government avows its determination to protect, I now proceed to show; and for that purpose will have recourse to the letters of Mr. John Jacob Astor, addressed to the Department of State, and giving an account of his settlement on that river, and the attempts of the British fur company to break it up before the war, and their success in doing so after the war commenced, and by the aid of their Government. It was in the spring of 1811 that the ship Tonquin, despatched from New York by Mr. Astor, carrying 20 guns and 60 men, and an over-land party of 100 men, led by Mr. Wilson P. Hunt, arrived on the Columbia, and built the fort called Astoria, near its mouth, and trading posts in the interior. There were no British establishments then upon the river! But the moment the Hudson Bay Company heard of Mr. Astor's enterprise, they commenced their system of encroachment upon it. I now read from his letters:

"It is well known that as soon as the Northwest Company had information of my intentions, and plan for conducting my commercial operations, they despatched a party of men from the intector, with a view to arrive before my people at Columbia. These men were obliged to return without effecting their ob. ject. In the mean time, representations were made to their Government as to the probable effect of my operations on their interests, and requesting to interfere in their behalf. This be ing in time of peace, the Government did not deem it advisable to do so. So soon, however, as war was declared, these representations were renewed. Aid was asked from the Govern. ment; and it was granted. The Phoebe frigate, and sloops-ofwar Racoon and Porcupine, were sent from England, with orders to proceed to Columbia river and destroy my property. They sailed from England early in Jar.uary, 1813. Arriving at Rio de Janeiro, Admiral Dickson ordered the Phœbe frigate, with one of the sloops, to pursue Captain Porter, in the frigate Essex, and the sloop-of-war Racoon, to the Columbia river. She arrived there, took possession in the name of the King, and changed the name of the place (Astoria) to Fort George. The plan by me adopted was such as must have materially affected the interest of the Northwest and Hudon Bay Companies; and it was easy to be foreseen that they would employ every measure to counteract my operations; and which, as my impressions, I stated to the Executive as early as February, 1811, as will be seen by the copy of a letter which I wrote to the Secretary of State; to which no reply was given. On repeated application, some time after, aid was promised me; but I believe the situation of the country rendered it inconvenient to give it." "I believe, at present, (February, 1813,) there is no post or establishment on the Co. lumbia river but the one here spoken of, (Astoria,) though I am pretty sure the Northwest Company will endeavor to fix one, as I have just now a letter from London dated November 19th, (1512) which says the Northwest Company are fitting the ship Isaac Todd, of about 500 tons, to go to the northwest coast. The writer does not say under what circumstances the ship goes; but that she will go to Columbia river, there can be no doubt. I pray you, sir, to have the goodness to bring this subject under the consideration of the President," &c.

*

Mr. B. read other passages from Mr. Astor's letters, explanatory of his enlarged and liberal views in making the establishment at the mouth of the Columbia river, and said they showed him to be a statesman as well as an able merchant. He also passed a high encomium on the character of Mr. Wilson P. Hunt, who led the overland expedition of 100 men to the Columbia in 1811, and who, notwithstanding his political opposition, was kept in the best federal office in the State of Missouri (the St. Louis post office) eleven and a half years out of the twelve that Gen. Jackson and Mr. Van Buren were Presidents. Having done this justice to Mr. Astor, and his agent, Mr. Hunt, (the first projector, and the first founder of a white settlement on the Columbia river,) Mr. B. returned to the immediate object of his quotations from Mr. Astor's letters: they were to show that he made the first settlement on the Columbia-that there was then no British settlement upon it-that the British fur companies went to work immediately to break him up that he resisted them during the peace, but sunk under them during the war, the British Government having come to their aid. The capture of his post was an act of war, done by a British sloop of war; and as a place so captured, it was bound to be restored at the peace. The Ghent treaty stipulated for the restitution, and it was restored. But here a fraudulent evasion of the treaty was immediately perpetrated. The fort Astoria was given

The Oregon Bill-Mr. Benton.

up; and the clear intention of the restitution was that the fort represented the country, and that, in its surrender, the country should be given up. This was the clear intent of the treaty; not so the conduct of the British! They gave up the little fort itself, and immediately built a better one, in a better position higher up the river; and then established a chain of posts from the tide-water to the mountains, and on both sides of the river. These are the establishments which Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Addington say have grown up under the Nootka convention, and to which the British Government owes protection, and intends to give it! These are the establishments with respect to which that arrogant language was used, and which, in fact, are not within 500 miles of Nootka Sound, and have no connexion with it. They are wilful encroachments upon our known territory!-they are flagrant intrusions upon our settlements!--they are fraudulent evasions of the treaty of Ghent!-and they are taking the character of permanent possession and national colonies, while the Nootka Sound convention, under which they are alleged (absurdly alleged) to have grown up, would only have justified temporary huts upon the coast, for the personal accommodation of hunters and fishermen while pursuing their craft. Major Pilcher, late superintendent of Indian affairs at St. Louis, (removed for his politics and his friendship to me,) and who visited the Columbia in 1829, thus speaks of the principal of these establishments, such as it was at that time:

"This fort is on the north side of the Columbia, nearly op. posite the mouth of the Multnomah, in the region of tide-water, and near the head of ship navigation. It is a grand position, both in a military and commercial point of view, and formed to command the whole region watered by the Columbia and its tributaries. The surrounding country, both in climate and soil, is capable of sustaining a large population; and its resources in timber give ample facilitics for ship-building. This post is fortified with cannon; and, having been selected as the principal or master position, no pains have been spared to strengthen and improve it. For this purpose, the old post near the mouth of the river has been abandoned About 120 acres of ground are in cultivation; and the product in wheat, barley, oats, corn, potatoes, and other vegetables, is equal to what is known in the best parts of the United States. Domestic ani. mals are numerous-the horned cattle having been stated to me at 300; hogs, horse, sheep, and goats, in proportion; also, the usual domestic fowls: everything, in fact, indicating a permanent establishment. Ship-building has commenced at this place. One vessel has been built and rigged, sent to sea, and employed in the trade of the Pacific ocean. I also met a gentleman, on my way to Lake Winnipec, at the portage between the Columbia and Athabasca, who was on his way from Hudson's Bay to Fort Colville, with a master ship-carpenter, and who was destined for Fort Vancouver, for the purpose of build. ing a ship of considerable burden. Both grist and saw mills have been built at Fort Vancouver: with the latter, they saw the timber which is needed for their own use, and also for exportation to the Sandwich Islands; upon the former, their wheat is manufactured into flour. And, from all that I could learn, this important post is silently growing up into a colony; and is, perhaps, intended as a future military and naval station, which was not expected to be delivered up at the expiration of the treaty which granted them a temporary and joint possession."

Such are the nature, origin, and present condition of the British establishments on the Columbia. They are intrusions upon our known territorytortious aggressions before the war on Mr. Astor's settlement-fraudulent evasions of the treaty of Ghent--and have no more to do with the Nootka Sound convention than they have with the late treaty of China. Nootka is in vain invoked to cover these encroachments upon us-encroachments for which British diplomacy has been endeavoring above thirty years to prepare the way-in which the powerful Hudson Bay Company has acted as the agent of the Government-and for the protection of which company the British ministers now boldly hurl defiance in our faces. There is nothing in the Nootka treaty to cover all this, even if it was not abrogated by war; and it remains to be seen whether the threat of war is to have an effect upon this vigorous young Republic of eighteen millions of people, which it failed to have over the decaying Spanish monarchy in 1790.

Fort Vancouver is but one of the British establishments on the Columbia: they have a connected chain of these settlements, stretching from tidewater to the mountains, and connecting with the interior posts which extend from Canada and from Hudson's Bay. They have the possession of the country: while the possession by right, by treaties, and by the admission of the British themselves, belongs to us. This was admitted during the negotiations of 1818. Mr. Rush, in a letter to Mr. Adams, of February, 1818, bears testimony to this admission.

He says:

"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 in possession while treating of the title." This was the admission of Lord Castlereagh

Senate.

while negotiating the convention of 1818. He had admitted our right to be reinstated-that is, to be restored to the possession which we had before the war, and of which war had deprived us. This possession was not limited to the diagram of earth covered by Mr. Astor's fort, but to the country of which it was part. To give up this diagram covered by a fort, and then go and take possession of all the country besides, was not a restitution, no more than it would have been to have taken possession of Michigan after giving up Mackinaw, or of Maine, after giving up Castine. We have a right to the possession, while treating of the title; but we have not the possession; and this bill, which proposes merely to obtain a part of what is due to us, is resisted because it implies the assertion of an exclusive possession, and may be a breach of the convention of 1818. This is a mistake. Exclusive can only be to the extent occupied. The British now have exclusive possession of the ground covered by Fort Vancouver, Fort Colville, and other forts, and of all the ground which they culti vate. They have forts, houses, fields, and farms, and possess them exclusively. Our grants will be no more exclusive than theirs: they will only exclude to the extent of the grant.

The objection to the terms of this bill grow out of the third article of the convention of 1818--that article which gives mutuality of occupancy, for certain purposes, to the country claimed by each party, for ten years; an article which is continued indefinitely by the convention of 1828, subject to de-. termination on one year's notice from either party. It is supposed that that article will prevent us from using our own property as we might have used it before that convention was made. This is a mistake; and the reading of the article itself will Show that its object was to give the privileges of hunting, fishing, and navigation to the citizens and subjects of each power over the territories claimed by the other, without diminishing the power of each over the territories claimed by itself. This is clear from the article, which is in these words:

"It is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of this convention, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers; it being well understood that this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high contracting parties may have to any part of said country; nor shall it be taken to affect the claims of any other power or State to any part of the said country; the only object of the high contracting parties, in that respect, being to pre vent disputes and differences amongst themselves."

This (said Mr. B.) is clear and explicit. We acquire the right of going upon the British claims to hunt, fish, and navigate: they acquire the right to come upon our claims for the same purposes:the claims of each remaining precisely as they were. This is all clear. Now, what were the claims of each at that time? Ours was territorial, and definite and notorious to the Columbia river, from its head to its mouth. The letter of Mr. Adams to our ministers in London, and their letters to him, show that the British had no such claim; that they pretended none such; but only labored to abrogate the line of forty-nine degrees, and to lay a nest-egg for future pretensions south of that line. Their claims were in the northwestfar in the northwest-where McKenzie, Hearne, and other discoverers had gone, and where the fur companies had taken possession. Our claim covered the whole Columbia. Mutuality of occupancy in each other's claimed territories for ten years, without diminution of rights over our own claimed territories, was the extent of the stipulation; and, therefore, we might do upon our claim whatever we did before, subject to the navigation, trade, &c., with which it was encumbered. We might grant land before the convention; we can grant it since. We might plant a colony before the convention, and may do it since; and the grant of land is the incident of colonization. In fact, we have placed no limitation upon our pre-existing rights.

And now, what has been the conduct of the British under this article? They have crossed the 49th degree-come down upon the Columbia--taken possession of it from the head to the mouth-fortified and colonized it--monopolized the fur trade-driven all our traders across the mountains-killed more than a thousand of them, (through their Indians,) and used the Columbia as a free port, through which they bring goods free of duty into our territories-up into

27TH CONG.... SD SESS.

This

the Rocky Mountains, and across them. is what they have done by their agent, the Hudson Bay Company. In its own name, and by an act of Parliament immediately after the convention, the British Government has extended jurisdiction over the whole country, taking no notice at all of our claims, and subjecting all our citizens and their property to British judges, British courts, and appeals to Canada. This act has been read by my colleague, [Mr. LINN,] and I commend it to the consideration of all Americans who object to this bill for fear it may imply an exclusive jurisdiction! and so give offence to the British. This is what has been done by the British since the convention. They have taken possession of our claimed territory, of our harbor, our river--colonized the country and killed and expelled our traders. What have we done? Nothing! So far from going into the Northwest to hunt, fish, and navigate on their claims, we have been expelled from our own! and the mutual convention has become the means of the exclusive possession of the British! Our traders, left to contend single-handed against the organized Hudson Bay Company, against their Indians, against their free goods, have all been driven in--forced not only out of the valley of the Columbia, but out of the Rocky Mountains--and ruin has overtaken many of them. Even the strong and rich company of Mr. Chouteau can no longer approach the Rocky Mountains. The Hudson Bay traders are the masters there. Every American that approaches that region, does so at the peril of his life. Many were killed there this summer. And, in the face of all this, we sit here, fearing to pass this bill, lest it may give offence to the British. It is time to terminate this convention of 1818; it is time to terminate the discreditable state of things in relation to the Columbia. It is a war subject, and the peace mission should have terminated it! No earthly consideration should have detached this question from the Maine boundary, and the other subjects of complaint. To separate them, was to surrender all the unsettled questions. The Columbia, and the Southern question in relation to slaves, were separated; and in that separation their sacrifice, or a war on account of them, was involved. The President, in his message recommending the peace treaty, informs us that the Columbia was the subject of "informal conferences" between the negotiators of that treaty; but that it could not then be included among the subjects of formal negotiation. This was an ominous annunciation, and should have opened the eyes of the President to a great danger. If the peace mission, which came here to settle everything, and which had so much to gain in the Maine boundary and the African alliance;-if this mission could not agree with us about the Columbia, what mission ever can? To an inquiry from the Senate to know the nature and extent of these "informal conferences" between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, and to learn the reason why the Columbia question could not have been included among the subjects of formal negotiation-to these inquiries, the Presi dent answers, that it is incompatible with the public interest to communicate these things. This is a strange answer, and most unexpected. We have no political secrets in our country, neither among ourselves nor with foreigners. On this subject of the Columbia, especially, we have no secrets. Everything in relation to it has been published. All the conferences heretofore have been made public. The protoca's, the minutes, the conversations, on both sides, have all been published. The British have published their claim, such as it is: we have published ours. The public documents are full of them, and there can be nothing in the question itself to require secrecy. The negotiator, and not the subject, may require secrecy. Propositions may have been made, which no previous administration would tolerate, and which it may be deemed prudent to conceal until it has taken the form of a stipulation, and the cry of war can be raised to ravish its ratification from us. All previous administrations, while claiming the whole valley of the Columbia, have refused to admit a particle of British claim south of 49 degrees. Mr. Adams, under Mr. Monroe, peremptorily refused to submit any such claim even to arbitration. The Maine boundary, settled by the treaty of 1783, had been submitted to arbitration; but this was refused. And now, if, after all this, any proposition has been made by our Government to give up the north bank of the river, I, for one, shall not fail to brand such a proposition with the name of treason.

The Oregon Bill-Mr. Linn.

The

This pretension to the Columbia is an encroachment upon our rights and possession. It is a continuation of the encroachments which Great Britain systematically practises upon us. Diplomacy and audacity carry her through, and gain her position after position upon our borders. It is in vain that the treaty of 1783 gave us a safe military frontier. We have been losing it ever since the late war, and are still losing it. The commission under the treaty of Ghent took from us the islands of Grand Menan, Campo Bello, and Indian island, on the coast of Maine, and which command the bays of Fundy and Passamaquoddy. Those islands belonged to us by the treaty of peace, and by the laws of God and Nature; for they are on our coast, and within wading distance of it. Can we not wade to these islands? [Looking at Senator WILLIAMS, who answered, "We can wade to one of them."] Yes, wade to it! And yet the British worked them out of us; and now can wade to us, and command our land, as well as our water. By these acquisitions, and those of the late treaty, the Bay of Fundy will become a great naval station to overawe and scourge our whole coast, from Maine to Florida. Under the same commission of the Ghent treaty, she got from us the island of Boisblanc, in the mouth of the Detroit river, and which commands that river and the entrance into Lake Erie. It was ours under the treaty of 1783; it was taken from us by diplomacy. And now an American ship must pass between the mouths of two sets of British batteries-one on Boisblanc; the other directly opposite, at Malden; and the two batteries within three or four hundred yards of each other. Am I right as to the distance? [Looking at Senator WOODBRIDGE, who answered, "The distance is three hundred yards."] Then comes the late treaty, which takes from us (for I will say nothing of what the award gave up beyond the St. John) the mountain frontier, 3,000 feet in height, 150 miles long, approaching Quebec and the St. Lawrence, and, in the language of Mr. Featherstonhaugh, "commanding all their communications, and commanding and overawing Quebec itself." This we have given up; and, in doing so, have given up our military advantages in that quarter, and placed them in the hands of Great Britain, to be used against ourselves in future wars. boundary between the Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods has been altered by the late treaty, and subjected us to another encroachment, and to the loss of a military advantage, which Great Britain gains. To say nothing about Pigeon river as being or not being the "long lake" of the treaty of 1783; to say nothing of that, there are yet two routes commencing in that stream-one bearing far to the south, and forming the large island called "Hunter's." By the old boundary, the line went the northern route; by the new, it goes to the south; giving the British a large scope of our territory, (which is of no great value;) but giving them, also, the exclusive possession of the old route, the best route, and the one commanding the Indians, which is of great importance. Above all, he brings them back to the Grand Portage, on this side of Pigeon river, from which they removed forty years ago to avoid paying duties; and then went to Fort William, beyond the Kamanistequia; he brings back the British fur company, and re-establishes them in the United States. At the same time, while yielding to this encroachment upon us in the Northwest, the American negotiator, disregarding his own witnesses when they would not follow his leading questions to draw testimony favorable to the British,--disregarding these witnesses, the American negotiator, yields to an encroachment in that quarter; grants all that Lord Ashburton asked, and then affects to have made an acquisition there of four millions of acres of fine mineral land! The encroachment now attempted upon the Columbia, is but a continuation of this system of encroachments which is kept up against us, and which, until 1818, labored even to get the navigation of the Mississippi, by laboring to make the line from the Lake of the Woods reach its head spring. If Great Britain had succeeded in getting this line to touch the Mississippi, she was then to claim the navigation of the river, under the law of nations, contrary to her doctrine in the case of the people of Maine and the river St. John. The line of the 49th parallel of north latitude is another instance of her encroaching policy; it has been mutilated by the persevering efforts of British diplomacy; and the breaking of that line was immediately followed by the most daring of all her encroachments-that of the Columbia river.

Jan. 1843. Senate.

Besides encroaching upon our borders, Great Britain is using all her own advantages in the same hostile sense. Bermuda, opposite the Southern coast, is made a vast place of arms. Nassau, New Providence, almost in sight of Florida, is made the same; the lines of steamers to Halifax and to the West Indies, commanded by naval officers and fitted for war, are all preparations against us. All around us-north, south, east, west-Great Britain is surrounding us, and encroaching upon us. Like a vast boa constrictor, she is involving us in her folds, and twisting herself all around us! and we sit here fearing to exercise our own rights, lest we give her offence! We are beleaguered, blockaded, hedged in, circumvented on all sides; yet fear to warn the intruder from our premises.

We fear war! as if the fear of war ever kept it off. We fear war! while Great Britain is systemat ically preparing for war with us. All her encroachments upon us show that she is preparing for this result. Why else this eternal pressure upon us? We do not go to the islands on the British coasts to obtain commanding positions against her. No other power in the world comes here to encroach upon us. Why does she come, except with hostile intents? She is preparing for war; and the late treaty is the largest of all her preparations. It pacifies the Northern States, leaving the South and West in the lurch; while the new corn law gives them virtually a free trade, and a separate trade in the great staples of grain and provisions. Henceforth they must have a separate interest in peace with Great Britain. The Union has ceased to be a unit in its complaints against that power!

Great Britain is preparing for war against us, and is manoeuvring to get the advantage in the cause; to find a pretext in the question of slaverya question in which she would have the sympathies of all the world, and much of this Union, on her side. Hence her invention of the new claim of visiting our ships on the coast of Africa-a claim which is a branch of the impressment claim, and which the tribute of the five years eighty-gun squadron has purchased off for the present. As a nation, Great Britain despises and hates our nation. There may be individual Englishmen who have regard for individual Americans; but, as it concerns nation and nation, they despise and hate us! They want war with us; and count upon its being short and triumphant. They count upon raising a San Domingo insurrection in the South, arming all the Indians of North America against us, and crushing the paper fabric of our finances. This is their count. We should count upon expelling them from our continent, giving liberty to Ireland, and aiding the English people to reform their Government. Sooner or later, war will come, for Great Britain is determined upon it; and we should roll back the thunder upon her own shores. Thirty thousand friends of Ireland landed on her coast, and forming the rallying-point for a million of patriots, would make that devoted island free, and shake OLD ENG LAND to her centre. These are my sentiments, and I neither dissemble nor deny them. Peace is our policy. War is the policy of England; and war with us is now her favorite policy. Let it come, rather than dishonor! The man is alive, and with a beard on his face, (though it may not be I,) whe will then see an American army in Ireland, and an American general in the streets of London.

SPEECH OF MR. LINN,

OF MISSOURI.

In Senate, Monday, January 9, 1843.-The bill for the occupation and settlement of the Territo ry of Oregon being under discussion, and on its passage-

Mr. LINN, in reply to the Senators from South Carolina and Massachusetts, [Messrs. CALHOUN and CHOATE] addressed the Senate as follows:

Mr. PRESIDENT: The Senator from South Caro lina has given a brief, but very admirable analysis of the English and American claims to the Territory of Oregon; and spoken with great force and truth of the rapid advance of our population to the West which may well be compared to the rolling on of great and wide stream. Yes, its march is onward to the West-to the far West; and can only b stayed by the waters of the great Pacific. You might as well attempt to dam the course of the turbulent Mississippi, as to arrest the onwar march of this restless people. The puny arm