F 880 
 .061 
 Copy 1 
 
SPEECH OF MR. DIX OF NEW YORK 
 
 ON THE 
 
 RESOLUTION GIVING THE TWELVE MONTHS' NOTICE FOR THE TERMINATION 
 OF THE JOINT OCCUPANCY OF THE OREGON TERRITORY. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 18 & 19, 1846. 
 
 Mr. DIX rose and proceeded to address the i even listen ?ii to a debate on the subject — a subject un- 
 Senate on the special order of the day. He said: til recently entirely new to me — 1 feel bound to state 
 
 In entering into the debate on tlie question under | the giounds on which I act. Tliis is what I propose 
 consideration, 1 fee! constrained to differ in opinion i to do — not by tlie analysis of any particular treatise, 
 with two distinguished senators who have preceded or by the e:canii.iation of any particular view of the 
 me, in relation "to the manner in whicli the discus- subject — but by exhibiting some of the historical 
 sion should be conducted. I allude to the senator facts on which the Spanish title and our own rest. 1 
 from Ohio, [Mr. Allen,] wlio opened the debate, | shall endeavor to perform this duty in the plainest 
 and the senator from Delaware, [Mr. Clayton,] manner, adheiing rigidly to the subject, and, if pos- 
 who followed him. Both took the ground, and ; sible, without addres.'iing a siiigle word to prejudice 
 with equally strong language, that the. title to Ore- ' or passion 
 
 gon ought not to be drawn into tliis discussion, but | 
 for totally ditferent reasons — the senator from Ohio, 
 because the time for discussing it had gone by, and th^ 
 senator from Delaware, because the tisne for diacur^s- 
 ing it had not arrived. With the unfeigned respect 
 
 The region which nov/ constitutes the territory of 
 Oregon was seen, and a part of its coast reconnoi- 
 tred — I will not say explored — hr.lf a century after 
 the discovery of America. In consequence of its 
 rernotenesa from the course of trade which v/as 
 
 which I entertain forboth senators, I dissentfrom their ' opened iiy the voyages of Cokimbus, the supposed 
 opinions wiiii great difhdence of my own. But I am rigor of its climate, and the certainty derived from 
 
 constrained to regard thequestion of our rights in Ore- 
 gon, as one on which the propriety of the mensiirea 
 proposed peculiarly and eminently depends. Wi'.at- 
 is the proposition before the Senate ? It is to give to 
 Great Britain the notice of twelve months, by virtue 
 of v/hich the treaty between her and the United Slates, 
 stipulating that the territory of Oregon shall be free 
 and open to the people of both countric;?, is to be ab- 
 
 t!ie expeditions sent out from Mexico, that it con- 
 tained no sources of v/ealth like those by which 
 Spain had been enriched in the more southern por- 
 tions of this conline)it, it remained, for more than 
 two centuries and a half, without any permanent 
 settlement by civilized men. During this long pe- 
 riod, Spai.i constantly asserted her right of proprie- 
 torship in it by virtue of discovery, and had formed 
 
 rogated and annulled.- We cannot disguise the fact, | temporary establishments in its neighborhood from 
 that this is a measure of the most decided character, ! ti.me to time. During the half century which succeded, 
 and involving the most important consequences, j it was frequently visited by shijis of other nations, 
 V/hat i.g it, sir, but a deckratio.) tliat the ter- by accident, for purposes of exploration, or for objects 
 ritory of Oregon, .after the expiration of tv/elve I of commerce, and thus there arose a number of claim- 
 months, shall no longer be open to the subjects of { ants to the right of sovereignty and domain. The 
 Great Britain ? It is the first step toward.s the asser- claims of Ru.'^isia have been adjusted with Great 
 lion of our right of empire and domain in Oregon. ' Britain. She holds, by the acquiescence of the lat- 
 1 can see it in no other light. I siiall support it. But ' ter, the whole northwest coast of America north of 
 I cannot assent to the propriety of adopting a meas- 1 latitude 54° 40\ as far back as the filst range of high- 
 ure of such magnitude without saying a single word } land?; and by virtue of a convention with the United 
 in illustration of our title to the territor)', over which States, wo have agreed to fortn no settlements north 
 we are thus preparing to assert our }5aramount of that parallel. The southern line of Oregon we hold 
 rights. 1 do not feel at liberty to take such a step, to be li.Ked, by the settlement of the boundary line be- 
 denying summarily ail right in others, or abstaining | twcen the United Siatesand Mexico, at 42°. The ter- 
 froni the assertion of any right in ourselves. 1 ritory in dispute has, therefore, a coast of twelve 
 
 I propose, therefore, as a preliminary of action on { patadels and two-thirds of latitude, running back into 
 my own part, to look at our title to Oregon — not for the interior to the R.ocky mountains; and theUnited 
 the purpose of defining it with critical precision, but | States and G.-eat Britain arc the only claimants to 
 
 so far as to state the genera! grounds on which it! 
 rests. And I am disposed to take, this course, not 
 only with a view to justify the vote 1 inien i to give, 
 but for the furtlier purpose of corrcciing extreme 
 misconceptions, both at home and abroad, on a few 
 points of vital consequence. No purely American 
 question has, perhaps, excited a stronger interest in 
 other countries; and I doubt whetlier any other has 
 been so greatly misrepresented. The same misappre- 
 hensions existat home. The public press, for the last 
 few weeks, has been teeming with essays disparaging 
 the Spanish title, on which our ov;n, in some de- 
 gree, rests. 1 am unwilling either to jmss by these 
 statements in silence, or tomeettliem with summary 
 declarations of right. It is natural that senator.'j, 
 who have been long on this floor, and who have al- 
 ready borne a part in the discussion of this question, 
 should feel difierently. But for myself, having never 
 
 the right of proprietorship in it. 
 
 Before- 1 proceed to examine their respective 
 claims, it may be proper as the subject has been 
 referred to on this floor, briefly to state the condi- 
 tions, under v^'hich, by the usage of nations, a right 
 of property in lands uninhabited, or occupied by 
 wandei'ing tribes, may be acquired. 
 
 The basis usuall)^ relied on to support a right of 
 this nature is discovery; but it is a ground of right 
 wiiich becomes untenable, unless followed by an 
 actual occupation of the discovered territory. If 
 a title is not perfected by occupation, a second, 
 discoverer may appropriate the territory ti-.us neg- 
 lected by the first. But tliis must be upon reason- 
 able evidence of the intention of the first discoverer 
 not to take possession of it. If a second discoverer 
 were to seize upon and appropriate the discovered 
 territory, before the first had time to form an estab-- 
 
'^' tishrnent, within.it, such an act of interference would 
 be regarded as an unwarrantable intrusion, which the 
 latter mi;!5;ht justly resist. On the other hand, if the 
 first discoverer neglects within a reasonable lime to 
 take actual possession of, to form settlements in, or 
 make some actual use of, the regions he has dis- 
 covered, the law of nations will not acknowledge in 
 him any absojute right.of property in or sovereignty 
 over it, even though he may have set up monuments 
 or memorials of his discovery at the time it was 
 made. Such is the spirit of the rules in relation to 
 the discovery and occupation of uninhabited terii 
 tory, stated by writers on international law. It 
 is certainly not easy to lay down an]!- invaria- 
 ble rule in respect to the time within which, or 
 ■ the circumstances under which, a title by discovery 
 must be perfected by occupation. The rules and 
 maxims of international law are but a practical ap- 
 plication of the principles of universal equity and 
 justice; and in the settlement of questions of this na- 
 ture, the real objects and intentions of the parties 
 are to be sought for in area^xinable interpretation of 
 their acta. I believe, however, the doctrine may be 
 considered fairly inferrable from the whole body of 
 the law on this subject, that rights by discovery are 
 good until superseded by rights of occupation. With 
 regard to Great Britain I believe I may safely say 
 that her practical rule pushes this doctrine farther. 
 Sberesists all attempts by others to acquire rights 
 of occupation in territories which she has discover- 
 ed, and thus renders her own rights by discovery 
 perpetual. She discovered the Chatham islands in 
 1791 by Lieut. Broughton, in the armed tender 
 Chatham, after parting company with Vancouver 
 sn their way to the northwest coast.* She has not 
 occupied them until recently; and I am not sure 
 that there is npw anything more than a whaling es- 
 tablishment on them; but she insists that no other 
 power shall occupy them, because it would be in- 
 jurious to her settlements in New Zealand, which 
 are nearly five hundred miles distant from them. 
 
 I propose now to see what acts have been performed 
 in respect to Oregon by different nations; or, in oiher 
 words, to examine the nature of the discoveries 
 which have been made, and the establishments which 
 have been^forrned in that region, applying to them as 
 I proceed the principles I have concisely stated. 
 
 The first discoverer of any part of the northwest 
 coast of America north of, or in immediate conti- 
 guity, with the boundary between us and Mexico, 
 was Ffrrelo. He was the pilot of Cabrillo, the 
 commander of an expedition fitted outin Mexico in 
 1543, fifty-one years after the discovery of San Do- 
 mingo by Columbus. Cabrillo died on the voyage, nnd 
 Ferrelo succeeded to the command. He examined 
 the coast from the Santa Barbara islands, in latitude 
 34°to the 43d parallel of latitude, but the latter part of 
 his voyage was made, I believe, without landing, 
 and by a mere inspection of the coast from his 
 vessel. In 1535, eight years before this exploration 
 was made, poesession had been taken of California 
 Iw Fernando Cortes, in the name of Spain, and an 
 establishment had been formed in 24° of north lati- 
 tude. This establishment was kept up for several 
 years; and the gulf of California to its northern ex- 
 tremity, with the western coast as high as 38° north 
 latitiidfi, had been explored. These explorations, 
 and tlie establishments formed in carrying them on, 
 were all made in pursuance of a settled purpose on 
 the part of Spain to extend her dominion over the 
 uninhabited territory on the northwestern coast of 
 America. The discoveries to which these explorations 
 led were therefore not alccidental. The ex peditions 
 
 :*See Vancouvci'S Jouruol, Book 1, chyj). ■.>. 
 
 I were fitted out for the smgle object referred to. In 
 i the prosecution of this design, it is true, the most 
 arrogant and absurd pretensions were set up by 
 Spain in respect to the exclusive navigation of the 
 Pacific; but these must not be permitted to prejudice 
 her just claims to portions of the continent washed 
 by its waters on the ground of discovery and occu- 
 pation, and the declared purposes she had in view. 
 
 The next navigator who appeared on the north- 
 west coast was Sir Francis Drake. He left England 
 in 1577, on a predatory expedition against the do- 
 minion.s of Spain iti the Pacific. In 1579, after hav- 
 ing accomplished his object, and carried devastation 
 and terror into the unprotected Spanish settlements 
 on the coast, he landed in 38° north latitude, 
 in a bay supposed to be that of San Francisco, 
 and passed five weeks in repairing his vessel. 
 He took possession of the country and called 
 it New Albion. It is pretended that Sir Francis 
 Drake followed the const as far north as 48°; 
 but the best authorities fix the northerly limit 
 of his examination, which was a mere inspection 
 from his vessel, at 4.3°, the supposed boundary of 
 Ferrelo's inspection more than a quarter of a century 
 before. As the British negotiators have abandoned 
 Drake's expedition as a part of the basis of their 
 claim, I will not dwell upon it excepting to add 
 that his examinations were accidental; they were 
 not made in pursuance of any purpose of ex- 
 ploration or settlement; they led to the discov- 
 ery of no new territory; and they were not 
 followed up by an actual occupation of the soil. For 
 two centuries no claim that I am aware of was set 
 up by Great Britain on the ground of Drake's pre- 
 tended discoveries. 
 
 The next explorer was the Greek pilot, Juan da 
 Puca, who was sent to the northwest coast in 1592, 
 thirteen years after Drake, by the viceroy of Mexi- 
 co, for the purpose of discovering the imaginary 
 strait of Anian, supposed, at that day, to connect the 
 north Pacific with the north Atlantic ocean. In the 
 prosecution of his voyage he entered an extensive 
 inlet from the sea, as he supposed, between the 47th 
 and 48th parallels of latitude, and sailed more than 
 twenty days in it. Such is his own account as de- 
 tailed by Michael Lock; and it accords, as well as 
 his descriptions, so nearly with the actual nature of 
 the localities, that it is now generally conceded that 
 it is substantially true; and his name is conferred 
 by universal consent on the strait between the 48th 
 and 49lh parallels of latitude. Spain had thus made 
 discoveries on the northwest coast before the close 
 of the 16th century as far north at least as the 4Sth 
 degree of latitude, and the natur* of her explora- 
 tions, from their extent and the settled purpose in 
 pursuance of whicli they were made, excludes all 
 claim of discovery by others down to that period of 
 time. 
 
 In 1603, Vizcaino, a distinguished naval com- 
 mander, under an order from the king of Spain, 
 made a careful survey of the coast of California to 
 Monterey, in the 37tii parallel of latitude; and he 
 also explored the coast as far north as the 43d par- 
 allel, giving names to several bays and promonto- 
 ries as he advanced. Duiing the seventeenth centu- 
 ry, at least seven diOerent attempts were made by the 
 Spaniards to form estalilislimcnts in California; but, 
 from the hostility of the natives, and other causes, 
 these attempts failed, so iar as any permanent set- 
 tlement is concerned, e>.cepiing the last, which was 
 made in 1697. But, witliin sixty years from thi.s 
 time, sixteen principal establishments were formed 
 by the Jesuits on ♦he wcsKtu coa.st of America, be- 
 tween th.e Gulf of California and cape Mcnducinr, 
 
one of which was in the bay of St. Francisco, near 
 the 38th degrre of latitude. During the whole period 
 from the landiiii; of Fernando Cortes in California, 
 and the latttr part of the eighteenth century, Spain 
 had uniformly asserted her title to the northwest 
 coast of America, and had from time to time made 
 efforts not only to e.xtend her discoveries there, but 
 lo pel feet lier right of empire and domain by per- 
 manent establishments. 
 
 In 1774, Perez was ordered by the viceroy of 
 Mexico to proceed to 6(J° north latitude, and 
 explore the coast south to Monterey, and to take 
 possession, in the name of the kmg of Spain, of the 
 places where heshould land. He succeeded in reach- 
 ing the 54th parallel, within two-thirds of a degree of 
 the northern boundary of the disputed territory, 
 whence he returned along the coast to Washington's 
 island, as it was called by Capt. Gray, or Q^neen 
 Charlotte's island, as it was afterwards named by 
 the British navigators. In latitude 49° 30' he enter- 
 ed a capacious bay, where he remained for some 
 time, trading with the natives — the same bay, be- 
 yond all question, which was four years afterwards 
 called King George's sound by Capt. Cook, and 
 ii now known as Nootka sound. 
 
 The next year, (1775,) Heceta sailed as far north 
 as the 48th degree of latitude, and explored the 
 coast south, filling up the outline which Perez had 
 left incomplete. He had previously landed at 41° 
 10', and erected a cross with an inscription setting 
 forth that he had taken possession of the country in 
 the name of his sovereign. In latitude 46° 17^ he 
 discovered a rapid current outward from the land, 
 opposite to an opening, which he immediately pro- 
 nounced to be the mouth of a river. From him it 
 was first called the Entrada de Heceta, and af- 
 terwards the river St. Roc. He made repeat- 
 ed attempts to enter it, but was constantly baffled 
 by the violence of the current. This is now conce- 
 ded to have been the mouth of the river Columbia, 
 which was discovered and entered by Capt, Gray, 
 of Boston. 
 
 During the same year the coast was also explored 
 from the' 5()ih to the 59th degree of latitude by 
 Q,uadra (y Bodega) and Maurelle, who erected 
 crosses in testimony of their discoveries, On their 
 return, they visited the coast at the 47th degree of 
 latitude, and explored it from the 45th southwardly 
 to the 42d- 
 
 It will be perceived by these details, which I have 
 deemed it necessary to state with some particulari- 
 ty, that previous to 1778, the year in which Cap- 
 tain Cook visited the northwest coast, the Spaniards 
 had examined it with great care and perseverance 
 from 37° to 49° .30'. They had also examined it from 
 the 54th to the 59th parallels, and visited it at iiiter- 
 niediate points. And in these explorations they 
 were wholly without competitors, excepting on the 
 partof some Russian navigators, who had madedis-1 
 •coveries north of the 5Gth parallel, and Drake, who 
 had visited the coast at the 38th. During the two cen- 1 
 turies which intervened from the expedition af! 
 Drake to the third voy;ige of Cook, no attempt had j 
 been made, nor any design indicated on the part of | 
 Great Britain, to avail her.self of any pretended right | 
 by virtue of the transient visit of the former to the | 
 coast; while Spain constantly asserted her claim to 
 it by virtue of previous and subsequent discoveries. 
 And ill California and its neighborhood she had, af- 
 ter repeated efforts, su •.■eeded m eiiecting the per- 
 manent occupation of the country, which was her 
 earnest obje(;[ — an object which no other power du- 
 ring that long period had even in contemplation. 
 
 The third voyage of Captain Cook, undertaken ' 
 
 in 1777, gave the first indication of a desire on 
 the part of Great Britain to appropriate such parts 
 of the northwest coast of America as she consid- 
 ered open to settlement, and subject them to her 
 dominion. He was instructed to take possession, 
 in the name of the king, of convenient situations in 
 the countries he might discover that had not been 
 already discovered or visited by any other Euro- 
 pean power. In 1778 he landed at Nootka sound, 
 in 49° 33' nortli latitude, where he remained nearly 
 a month trading with the natives and refitting his 
 vessel. I believe this was the only point within the 
 territory in dispute at which Captain Cook landed;and 
 it id proved by us latitude to be the same bay which 
 Perez discovered four years before, and in which 
 he passed some time, like Captain Cook, trading 
 with the natives. The subsequent explorations of 
 the latter were made further north, (1 believe he 
 did not see the coast south of 55°,) with a view to 
 the discovery of a passage between the Pacific and 
 Atlantic oceans, and they have no bearing on the 
 question under discuission. 
 
 The explorations of Captain Cook gave no title 
 whatever to Great Britain on the score of discovery 
 --the onljr place where he landed having been pre- 
 viously visted by Perez. Besides, if she had gained 
 a contingent right of possession by virtue of his. 
 explorations, she did not proceed to perfect her title 
 by a formal occupancy. The neglect of Great 
 Britain to take actual possession of Nootka sound, 
 even if she had gained a contingent right by discov- 
 ery, is conclusive against any claim on her part to a 
 right of property in it. For eight or nine years the 
 British flag was not once unfurled there, as I can 
 learn, although the place had, in the mean time, 
 been visited by navigators of other nations; and it 
 was not until several years later still that it was 
 even entered by a public armed vessel of Great 
 Britain; and then not until the Spanish government 
 had taken formal possession of it. 
 
 In 1787, Berkeley, an Englishman, inthe service 
 of the Austrian East India Company, saw the strait 
 of Juan de Fuca, but without attempting to enter it. 
 In like manner, Meares, a lieutenant in the British 
 navy, though in the service ofa Portuguese merchant, 
 and sailing under the flag of Portugal, sent a boat a 
 few miles into the strait in 1788, having learned from 
 Berkeley that he had re-di.scovered it the preceding 
 year. Meares also explored the coast in the vicini- 
 ty of the mouth of the Columbia river, and came to 
 the conclusion, to use his own language, that "no 
 such river as that of St. Pv.oc exists, as laid down in 
 the Spanish charts."— Voycig s, &j-c., John Meares, esq., 
 page 168; 
 
 As the transactions, in which Meares was en- 
 gaged, on the northwest coast, are intimately con- 
 nected with the claim of Great Britain to a right of 
 joint occupancy in respect to Oregon,! trust it will 
 not be deemed superfluous if! examine them some- 
 what in detail. 
 
 Before making the explorations above referred to^ 
 Meares had landed at Nootka sound, at d left a pair- 
 ty to build a small vessel. He had for a trifling con- 
 sideration obtained the grant of "a spot of ground" 
 from Maquinna, the king of the surrounding coun- 
 try, to build a house for the accommodation of the 
 party. The occupation was avowedly fur a tempo- ' 
 rary purpose, and he had stipulated with Maquinna 
 to restore the possession to l)im, when he (Meares) 
 should finally leave the coast.* In the auturnii oC 
 
 *"Ma(]iiinna had not only most readily consented to grint 
 us a spot of ground in his territory, wheieon a hoasft 
 miglit Ije tiuilt for the accoramodationof tiie jjuiiple we in-, 
 tended to leave there, but iiad proniisi'd us aiso kis assist- 
 
the same year he left Nootka sound with his vet'^el?, 
 one of which v;intered in Cliina, and the two otiiers 
 ill ilie .Saiidwich islands. 1 .should have before ob- 
 served that he arrived at Nooika sound wuh two 
 vessels, the T'elicc and tlie!|ihiv;eiiia; and the thi:-<l, 
 the Northwest America, -was built there diirinir the 
 summer. In the meantime the Columbia and (he 
 Washington, two American vessels from Boston, 
 entered the sound and passed the winter; and 
 from all the testimony relating; to the sub- 
 ject, there is no doubt that the lot occupifd 
 by Meares was abandoned or restored to Maquin- 
 na in pursuance of the agreement between them. 
 During all this time, it is to be recollected, Meares 
 -wassailini^ under the PorlU{.n!ese!la,i; niul it is a ciiri- 
 ous fact, that ho carried with hitn instructions to re- 
 pel by force any attempt on tlic part, of ilassian, 
 Spanish, or Enj!;iish vesritls to seize liim, or carry 
 
 ■* him out of his wr.y. He was further instructed, in 
 case he was successful in CKpturinji; his assailant, to 
 
 , Bend Iho vessel to China to be condemned, and the 
 crew to be tried as pirates;* and vet, sir, notwicii- 
 standing he was sailing under a foreign fia,-;, with 
 orders to treat his Britannic majcst3''s subjects an 
 pirai'S in case they molested Iiim, the British gov- 
 ernment does notsciuple to found its title to Oregon 
 on his voyage. 
 
 Though the veasela of MeaiTs' sailed under 
 the Portuguese flag, and under the n«n'ic; of a Portu- 
 guese subject, he asserted in hia memorial that the 
 parties in interest were British, merchants. I desir.^ 
 to state the whole truth, and therefore I sive a fact 
 I have r:otseon noticed. At pr.ge 17.3 of his voy- 
 ages it will be seen that !;e took possession of the 
 straits of Juan de Fuca, in (h.e name of ti^e king 
 of Great Britain, in .July, 1788. • But iuvieocn- 
 dently of the objection to claims founded upon the 
 
 . trans.Act;cn3 of an individual, who, '.under the most 
 favorable v'.ev/ that can be taken of him, had sought 
 the protection of a foreiirn Hag to pe.-petrate frauds 
 on the revenue laws of China, this i!rj:;uthorized 
 act of taking po.ssession under such a ihig was pre- 
 ceded mi'.ny years by similar form.'^lilies on iiie part 
 of the Spanish navigstors, under txpit :-':^ orders 
 from tlieir sovereign. Tlie two-fold cl;ara i; v v.hich 
 Bleares united in his person, certainly g;v^ e )i;m 
 rnanifest advantages, both as a trader and a di.^co- 
 verer. He v/f.s a Portuguese cap'.-iio when defraud- 
 ing the revenue lav^s of China for tlie bci:efit of 
 British subjects, and ;i British lieutenant v.'he;-, en- 
 croac!\i;:g on tiie territorial rights of Spain for the 
 benefit of the British sovereign. 
 
 On ti.e 6th of May, ] 789," Martinez, a Sp.ini-^h 
 naval commander, with two public armed vessc-ls, 
 entered Nootka sound, with mstructioiis to assert 
 and maintain the paramount rights 'of Spain to 
 -the place, and to the adjacent coasts. The 
 •Iphigeriia, and tlis Northwest America, two of 
 Mcares's vess<:ls had returned from the Sandwich 
 islands, stiil .'■::ail[ng under Portuguese colors, and 
 arrived in t!ie sound on the 20;h of April, six- 
 teen days before Martinez. The Northwest Amer- 
 ica sailed eiglit days afterwards on a tnu'ing voyage, 
 and tlie Iphigenia was a short time subsequently 
 seized by Martinez, on the ground that her i'nstruc- 
 
 anceiii forwarjiiig our wcrks, •arid liis prottictinn of tlie 
 party, vvlio v.cra ditstined to :tr,iain at Nootka during our 
 absence." — Voyages, he, by Jolin Mean^s, jiajje ill. 
 
 "TUfi chief was also re(iue':tod to siiow evciT iiiavk of at- 
 tenlion aud fnend.=hip to llx; i>aily we thoald Jc;;ve on 
 siioio; aud as a bribe to seciue lii.? attaohnieiit, lie was 
 Xnvmisod that when \vp finally left the coa-t. ho slior.id enter 
 j:i;.() full rossession cf the house, and ail the goods and 
 cliattehi thereunto belonging." — lb., pi'.g.-; 13'J. 
 
 ♦Appendix to ilearcs's Vojugos, TspcrsNo. 1. 
 
 lions were hostile to Spain. She v/as, however,,, 
 soon restored, and continued to trade under Portu- i 
 gucse colors — a fact which shows conclusively that 
 no claim can justly be set up by Great Britain on- 
 the basis of his voyage to Nootka, and his tempora- 
 r)^ establishment there. The Northv/est America- 
 was also seized, for reasons not directly connected 
 with any question of sovereignty, aiid v; as employ- 
 ed for nearly two years in the Spanish service. 
 
 In the month of June, 1789, two ves.sel.?, the 
 Argonaut and Princess Royal, sailing under British 
 colors., arrived at Nootka, and v,-eie seized by Mar- 
 tinez. It is unnecessary to enter irito the details of 
 this transaction. It is sufficient to say that it led 
 to an animated discussion between the govern— 
 rn'ents of Great Britain and Spain, in respect to their 
 rights in the Pacific, and the v/esteiit coast of Amer- 
 ica, which for several months threatened to produce 
 a war between the two countries, but which was 
 finally terminated in October. 1790, by the treaty of 
 the Escurial, or the Nootka Sound convention, as it 
 is more frequently denomitiated with us. Before the 
 negotiations were concluded, botii vessels were 
 voluntarily released by the Spanish authorities in 
 Mexico. 
 
 As the Nootka Found convention constitutes an 
 essentia! ingredient in the claim of Great Britain, it 
 will be necessary to advert to such of its provisions 
 as are made the foundation of her title to the qual- 
 ified exercise of sovereignty which she asserts over 
 the northwest coa.st of America, and to consider 
 them in connexion with tlie circumstances under 
 which they were framed. The articles v.-hicii relate 
 particularly to the question under discussion, are the 
 1st, 3d, 5;h, and Gth. 
 
 The 1st article provides that tiie "the buildings' 
 and tracts Of land situated on the northwest coast of 
 the continent of North Americti, or on the islands 
 adjacent to that continent, of which the subjects of 
 his Britannic majesty were dispossessed about the 
 month of April, 1789, by a Spanish officer, shall be 
 restored to the said British subjects." 
 
 The 3d article provides that, "in order to strengthen 
 the bonds of friendship, and to preserve in future a 
 poirfect hsrmony and good understanding between 
 the tv.o contracting parties, it is agreed that their 
 respective subjects shall not be disturbed or molest- 
 ed, either in navigating or carrying on their fislieries 
 in the Pacific ocean, or in the South seas, or in 
 landing on tlie coasts of those seas in places not al- 
 ready occupied, for the purpose of carrying on their 
 commerce with the natives of the country, or of 
 iiiuking settlements there; the whole subject, never- 
 theless, to tl-.e restrictions specified in the three fol- 
 lowing articles." 
 
 The 5th artitle provides that "as well in the 
 places which are to be restored to the British sub- 
 jects by virtue of the first article, as in all otlier 
 parts of the northwestern coasts of America, or of 
 t'le islands adjacent, situate to the north of the parts 
 of the said coast-already occupied by Spain, wherever- 
 the subjects of either of the tvvo powers shall have 
 made settlements since the month of April, 1789^ 
 or shall hereafter make any, the subjects of the- 
 otiiershall have free access, and shall carry on their 
 trade without any disturbance or molestation." 
 
 The Gth article relates to the coast of South 
 America; but it has an importance in containing a 
 definition of the erections v/hich may lie made, con- 
 fining them to such as may serve the purposes of 
 fishing; and the provisions of the third article are 
 expressly declared to be .subject to the restrictions in 
 "the three following articles," one of which is the Gth. 
 I no-ff proceed to state certain facts in re;3pect 
 
to this convention, and to draw from them con- 
 clusions at v/hich 1 havearrived with some diffidence. 
 The facts 1 sliali endeavor to present with a rigid 
 regard to accuracy. If my conclusions are errone- 
 ous, the better Judgment oi' the Senate will correct 
 tliem; and I shaii have the consolation of reflecting 
 tliat my errors — if they shall prove such — have led to 
 the discovery of troth, which I am sure is the great 
 object of every senator on this floor. 
 
 The first article was practically inoperative, from 
 a total misapprehension of the facts which it sup- 
 posed. There is no evidence that subjects of his 
 Britannic majestv h:>.d been dispossessed of build- 
 ings or tracts of lands in April, 1789, or at any other 
 time, by a Spanish officer. In the message of the 
 British king to Pavliament, and in the earnest dis- 
 cussions bctwec!^ (he two countries in respect to the 
 .seizure of the British sJiips, no mention is made of 
 such dispossession. Wiien Vancouver was sent 
 out, in 1792, to receive possession of the buildings, 
 &c., to be res'oifd, none could be found excepting 
 those erected by tlie Spaniards. No building occu- 
 pied by Briti.-jh subjects remained at Nootka in 
 1789, when Martinez arrived there; and it was 
 denied by the I.*dians that any tracts of land had 
 been ceded to British subjects. In fact, there Vv'ere 
 no traces of the oncupancy which the article sup- 
 posed. The only jiretence of a cession of territory 
 of which there was any evidence, was the right ac- 
 quired b)' Mcsr^s, v.'hile acting in the name of a 
 Portuguese citizen, and sailing under the fing of 
 Portugal, to occupy tem.porarily a very small lot, 
 which he himself admits lie had eigreed to restore 
 when he should leave ihc coast. 
 
 After a long controversy on the subject between 
 Vancouver and duadra, the Spanish commander at 
 Nootka, the former departed without receiving any 
 restitution of buildings or lands, and the subject 
 was referred to their respective governments. In 
 1796, Capt. Broiighton arrived at Nootka, and 
 found the place unoccupied. (See his Voyage of Dis- 
 covery to the north Pacific Ocean, pnge 50.) He 
 BO where st,Ates that he was sent out with instruc- 
 tions to adjast the difficulty. But he says he was 
 informed by letters left with Maqninna, the Indian 
 king, that "the Spaniards had delivered u;i the 
 port of Nootka, &c. to Lieutenant Pierce, of the 
 marines, agreeaijjy to the mode of restitution set- 
 tied between the two courts." But there is no 
 ■proof of such restitution. The only authority re- 
 lied on to show such a restitution, is one recently 
 produced by the London Time^. I allude to De 
 Koch, vol. 4, page 126- He says: 
 
 '•The executior. of the convt r.tion of the 2Sth October, 
 1T90" [the Nootka conventionl '■experienced some diiticul- 
 ties which delayeil it till 179fi". They ■^■ere terminated the 
 23d of "viardj of that year, on the spot itself, by the Span- 
 ish Brigadier- >\l;iva iind the Englisli Lieutenant Poara, 
 who exchanged liecl^jratious in the hay of ^ootka•, after 
 ■ivhich the Spanish fort was destroyed, ths Spaniards cm- 
 barked, and the I'iiglish flag was planted there in sign of 
 possession '' 
 
 De Koch ha=! the reputation of being accurate. 
 
 But ther-s is ctriairdy one error in his statement. 
 
 There wif; no such name as Ponra in the British 
 
 registers of that year. He doubtless meant Pierce. 
 
 In opposition to this testimony of a foreign 
 
 writer, we have llie assertion, twice repeated, of the 
 British historian, Belshnm, that the Spanish flag at 
 Nootka Vvas never struck, and that the place wiss 
 virtually relinquislicd by Great [jiitainf If any re.-^- 
 titution was ever made, the evidence must be in 
 the possession of Great Britain. Signor Q,ua:lra ifi 
 1792 olfered to give Vancouver possession, reserv- 
 ing the rights of sov.ircignty which Spain j.ossessed. 
 There may have been a restitution with such reser- 
 vation; but, if there is any evidence of a restitution, 
 why has it not been produced by the British nego- 
 tiators, or at least referred io.> Where are the dec- 
 larations mentioned by De Koch as having been 
 exchanged? Why has the evidence never been pro- 
 duced.? Probably because, if there is any suck 
 evidence, it must prove a conditional and not an 
 absolute .surrender — such a surrender as ."ihe i.s 
 unwilling to show — a surrender reserving to Spain 
 her rights of sovereignly. If there was a restitu- 
 tion, and she posaessci) the evidence of it, she prob- 
 ably secretes it, as she secreted the map of the 
 northeastern territory with the red line, because it 
 would have been a witness against her. When 
 Vancouver wetit out in 1793, lie carried an order 
 from the Spanish government to the commander at 
 the Portof^^aint Lav>?retice (Nootka) to restore the 
 buildings and disti^icts or parcels of land which 
 v/ere "occupied" by the su'jects of Great Britain at 
 Nootka and Port Cox, and of "which the English 
 subjects were dispossessed.'" Q,uadra refused to 
 execute it. No occupation — no dispossession was 
 •■noved. The treaty did not name Nootka or Port 
 Cox. Q,uadra considered, doubtless, the occupation 
 and dispos?.ession as facts to be shown. The exe- 
 cutiotiofthe treaty, though absolute in its terms, 
 depended on a contingency assumed to have hap- 
 pened — a contingency to be shown. In the absence 
 of any such proof, we have a right to insist on the 
 e\idencc of a restitution, full, formal, unconditional, 
 absolute. Broughton, in 1796, says the restitution 
 was made agreeably to the mode "settled between 
 the two courts." This was a mode settled on the 
 i-eference of the subject to the two governments 
 after the refusal of Cluadra to surrenser Nootka, 
 Vancouver, in his journal, vol. 6, page 118, says, 
 that on the 12th September, 179-i, Senor Alava told 
 him at Monterey that the matter iiad been adjusted 
 by their respective courts ":icar/;y on the terms" 
 v/hich I'.e (Vancouver) had repeatedly offered to 
 Quadra Even this statement, coming from Van- 
 couver, shows that there v/as a new agreement be- 
 tween the courts. What v/as the agreement.' We 
 have a right to call for its production. 
 
 Such was the practical execution of the first article 
 of the Nootka Sound convention. One fact is undeni- 
 
 *See Histoire Abregee des Traites de Paix, &c. par M. 
 de Koch, continue. &.c. p.').r F. Schoell; vol. iv. p. l^io. 
 
 "L'execution de la convention du 2S Octobre, 1790, 
 eprouva, au reste, de.-i ditlicultcs (fui la retarderent jusqu'en 
 1795. EUe? furent terminees le 23 Mars de cetta 'annee, sur 
 les lieux monies, par le Brigadier Espagnol Alav.i, et le 
 Lieutenant Anijois Poara, qui echangerent des declara- 
 tions dans le golfe de Nootka meme;apres qr.e Ie/o)V Es- 
 pusnolfiit. rase, les Rspasniils s'eml),''rqii.eri-nt, d le pavilion 
 t/ir.gtais y fut plante i-ii signe dc poisfssion." 
 
 i'^lt is certain, iieverthehi.sa. from the most authentic sul)- 
 sequent information, that the Spanish (lag flying at the fori: 
 .■and ssttlenient of Nootka \va« never struck, and that the 
 v.'ho!e territory iias been virtually relinquished by Oreat 
 Britain— a measure, however jiolitically expedient, which 
 involves in it a severe reflection upon the minister who 
 cou'd permit so insidious an encroachment i:pon the an- 
 cient anii acknowledged light? of thft C-ro-s\'n of Spain."— 
 ilelsham's. History of Great Itritain, vol. 8, page 337-"39. 
 
 "But though England, at the expense of three iniiHons, 
 extorted froin the Spaniards a promise of restoration au'.l 
 reparation, it is well a3certained,_,'(Vsf, that the settlement 
 in question never was restored by Spain, nor the Spanish. 
 .Cag at Nootka even struck; and, s'xoniHy, that no settle- 
 ment has even !-een sui/sequently attemptedby England oa 
 the Californi^an coast. Tlio ci./ifn. of right set up by the 
 court of London, it is therefore jiiaiu, has been virtually- 
 abandoned, not withstanding the r.u'nacing tone in which 
 tlie negotiation was conducted by the British admini;.lr8- 
 tion, ■ivho cannot escape some censure for cncour.^ging 
 those vexstious encroachments on the territorial rights of 
 ■■-Snain.-'— B»ls'iam's liistory of Gruat Biitain, vol.8, Appen- 
 dix, page 40-'41. 
 
able. Great Britain never occupied Nootka. Frona 
 1796 to Ciie present day, no attempt has been made 
 to reoccupy it by civilized men. Captain Belcher, 
 a Briti.sh naval officer, visited the place in 1837, while 
 making a voyage round the vi^orld. In his narra- 
 tive, page 113, vol. 1. he says : 
 
 ."No vestige remains of the settlement noticed by Van- 
 couver, nor could I discern on the site of the Spanish bat- 
 tery tlie slightest trace of stones employed fur building. 
 The chiefs pointed (iut where their houses stood, and where 
 the potatoes grew, but not a trace remains of a European." 
 
 The third article, besides stipulating for an unmo- 
 lested enjoyment of the right of navigating and fish- 
 ing in the Pacific and South seas and landing on the 
 coast, conceded in express terms to the subjects of 
 both nations the right to form settlements in places not 
 already occupied; but this right was subject to the re- 
 strictions of the "three followmg articles," one 
 of which was to limit its exercise to the parts of the 
 coast, or the islands adjacent, north of the parts al- 
 ready occupied by Spain. It had, by the terms of 
 the compact, no application whatever to parts of the 
 coast, of North America south of the places occu- 
 pied by Spain at the time the treaty was made. 
 The important question arises, what was the most 
 northern point occupied by Spain in 1790? This 
 became a matter of disagreement between the Span- 
 ish and British authorities at a very early day after 
 the Nootka Sound convention was formed. Van- 
 •couver claimed not only the whole of Nootka sound, 
 but also Port Cox, south of it; and he insisted, to 
 use his own phraseology, that "the northernmost 
 spot on the Pacific coast of America, occupied by 
 •the Spaniards previous to the month of May, 1789, 
 was the Presidio of San Francisco, in latitude 37° 
 48'." Now, it will be observed ihat an attempt was 
 made to give to the Nootka Sound convention a con- 
 struction wholly unwarranted by its terms. Vancou- 
 ver endeavored to fix the month of April, 1789, as the 
 time when the question of the most northern occu- 
 pation of Spain was to be settled. The language of 
 the convention, in respect to the right of forming 
 settlements, is "north of the parts of the said coast 
 already occupied by Spain," fixing the time, accord- 
 ing to every just rule of construction, at the date of 
 the treaty, the 28th of October, 1790. This con- 
 struction is strengthened by. the fact that a subse- 
 quent article concedes the right of forming tempora- 
 ry establishments on the coast of Soutir America, 
 south of parts "already occupied" by Spain, and re- 
 ferring indisputably to the date of the treaty- The 
 words "already occupied" are the .same in both ar 
 tides, and they must be considered as referring to the 
 same period of time. 
 
 The question, then, recurs, wha-t was the most 
 northerly pomt occupied by Spain in October, 1790, 
 at the conclusion of the treaty' 
 
 Martinez, as has been seen, took possession of 
 Nootka sound on the the 6th of May, 1789; and im- 
 mediately landed materials and cannon for building 
 and arming a fort on a «mall island, at the en° 
 tmnce of Friendly Cove. In Kovtmhcr he re- 
 turned to St. Bias, and in the spring of 1790, 
 Capt Elisa took his place. A penrianen't establish- 
 ment was formed; ve.ssels were sent out on exploring 
 expeditions; and during the negotiations between 
 Vancouver and auadra in 1792, the Spaniards 
 were la possession of houses and cultivated lands 
 Vancouver again found them in possession in 1793, 
 under Senor Fidalgo, and in 1794, under Senor 
 Saavadra, and the post was maintained without in- 
 terruption until 1795.J By turning to page 336, 
 
 tyancouver arrired at Nootka sound on the 20th May, 
 lf/93, and found the Spaniards in possession. He says: 
 
 volume 2. of Vancouver's Journal, a view of the. 
 Spanish establishment at Friendly Cove, on Nootka 
 sound, will be seen, from a sket( h tiiken on the 
 spot by one of Vancouver's party, in September or 
 October, 1792, and it exhibits ten roofed' buildings, 
 with several enclosures of cultivated land. It also 
 exhibits, totally distinct from these lands and build- 
 ings, a cove adjoining, and a reference to it stating 
 that it includes "the territories whi' li in Septern- 
 j ber, 1792, were offered by Spain to i>e ceded to 
 Great Britain." This was the site of ilie hut occu-- 
 pied by Meares, and the Spanish commander re- 
 fused to make a formal and absolute surrender to 
 Great Britain of any other land. 
 
 Thus it is established by proof not to he impeached^ 
 that the Spaniards were in the occupation of.^ post at- 
 Nootka sound in 1790, when the convrotion was ne- 
 gotiated and concluded; and I submit, therefore, 
 whether this must not be regarded as the southern 
 limit of the region, within which tlie right of form- 
 ing settlements, recognised or conceded by the con- 
 vention, was to be exercised Thi.-; point was 
 strenuously and perseveringly in.ssi^ted on by 
 CLuadra in his negotiation with Vancouver, and 
 with obvious justice. To use VanciMiver's ow» 
 language, page 342, 2d volume of Ifts Journal, 
 duadra observed that "Nootka ought to be the 
 last or most northwardly Spanish set/lement; that 
 there the dividing line should be fixed, and that 
 from thence to the northward should bi' free for en- 
 trance, use, and commerce to both par'ies, conform-- 
 ably with the fifth article of the convuniion; that es- 
 tablishments should not be formed witliout permision 
 of the respective courts, and that the English should 
 not pass to the south of Fuca " Suc'ti was Glua- 
 dra's construction of the treaty, and he uniformly re-- 
 fused to make any formal surrender of territory or 
 buildings, excepting the small cov.^ referred to. 
 Nootka sound is midway betv/een the 49th anS 
 50th parallels of latitude; and south of this point, 
 if Cluadra's position was well taken. Great Britain 
 could claim no right by virtue of the convention,, 
 if ii were still in force. 
 
 That Great B.'-itain would have had the right, un- 
 der the convention, at any time during its continuance, 
 to form a temporary establishment on any part of the 
 northwest coast, north of the Spanish post at Noot- 
 ka, v^ill not be disputed; though it would have 
 been subject to the right of free access arid trade re- 
 served to the subjects of ^Spain. But she neglected 
 to assert her right. She formed no .settlements in 
 pursuanceof therconvention; and, in 1796, Spain, 
 by declaring war against lier, put an rtui to the trea- 
 ty, agreeably to the acknowledged p: iociple of inter- 
 national law, that the permanence of treaty stipu- 
 lations can only be secured by express agreement, 
 and that without such dn agreement they cease to 
 
 "Ah officer tcas immediately despatched on shore to ac- 
 quaint Senor Fidalgo of our arrival, and that I woud 
 salute the fort if he would make an c.-inal return: this was 
 accordingly done with eleven guns." — Vancouver's Jonn- 
 nal, vol. 3. page 422. 
 
 Vancouver arrived at Nootka sound on the .5th of Octo- 
 bpr, 17!).'!, and, to use his own word.?, "the usual ceremonies 
 of salutes, and other formalities having passed, accompanied 
 by Mr. Puget, I waited on Senor Saavadra, the commander 
 of tlie post."'— Vol. 4, page 289. 
 
 Vancouver arrived at Nootka sound on the 2d September, 
 1794, and found Brigadier General Alava in command. He 
 left without resuming the negotiatiou which he had com- 
 menced with Quadra, in 1792. On the 12tii November, 1794, 
 he was informed by Oeneral Alava. at .Monterey, where 
 they met, that instructions had been sent to adjust the mat- 
 ter in an amicable way, and nearly on the terms, which 
 he (Vancouver) had repeatedly offered to Senor Quadja in 
 September, 1792. But of this, as has been seen, there is no 
 satislactory evidence. See Gth volume, page 6^. 
 
be binding on the occurrence of hostilities between 
 tlie contractine; parties, wnless there is something in 
 tlie nature of the questions settled which is, of 
 necessity, permanent and final. Havini^ faikd, 
 then, to make any settlement on the coast from 
 1790 to 1796, all rie;hts conceded by the convention 
 ceased with the declaration of war, by which it was 
 terminated. From tliat time forth. Great Britain 
 stood in precisely the same relation to Spain as 
 though the convention had never been formed; and 
 inorder to establisk any claim she may advance to 
 territorial rights on the northwest coast, she must re- 
 sort to those general rules founded upon discovery 
 and occupation which were briefly adverted to at 
 the commencement of my remarks. 
 
 Iwill not discuss the question whether the treaty 
 of the Escurial was revived by the treaty of Mad- 
 rid, in 1814. I consider it put at rest by the able 
 argument of the American negotiator. IVIr. Buchanan. 
 Let me now revert to the progress of discovery 
 and exploration, which I was briefly sketching, and 
 which was interrupted by the events of the Nootka 
 Sound controversy. 
 
 In 1789, the American sloop Washington, com- 
 manded by Capt. Gray, who afterwards discovered 
 ihe Columbia river, entered and sailed fifty miles in 
 the strait of Juan de Fuca. Mcares, in his narra- 
 tive, describes a voyage by the Washington entirely 
 through the strait to the north of the islands of 
 duadra and Vancouver, and thence into the Pacific. 
 If such a voyage was ever made, it must have been 
 under Capt. Kendrick, who was, at another period, 
 in the command of that vessel; for Gray, when he 
 met Vancouver in 1792, said it was not made by 
 him. But, be this as it may, it is certain that 
 the Wa.shington was the first vessel which pene- 
 trated the strait beyond its mouth afier its dis- 
 covery by De Fuca. A subsequent examina- 
 tion was made in 1790, as high as 50°, by or- 
 der of the Spanish commander at Nootka sound; so 
 that its shores were well kiiown in their general out- 
 lines before the examinations made by Vancouver 
 two years afterwards. 
 
 In 1793, Vancouver arrived on the northwest 
 coast, with instructions to examine and survey the 
 whole shore of the Pacific from th? 35th to the 60th 
 ■parallel of latitude, and particularly io examine "the 
 supposed strait of Juan de Fuca," "through which 
 the sloop Washington is reported to have passed in 
 1789, and to have come out again to the northward 
 of Nootka." He passed the mouth of the Colum- 
 bia river, which he considered as an opening unde- 
 serving of "more attention," and came to the con- 
 clusion that, between the 40th and 48th parallels of 
 latitude, the rivers which had been described "were 
 reduced" (I use his own words) "to brooks insuf- 
 ficient for our vessels to navigate, or to bays inap- 
 pliaable, as harbors, for refitting." On the 29th of 
 April, he met Capt. Gray, in the ship Columbia, 
 from Boston, and was informed by him that he had 
 "been off the mouth of a river in the latitude of 46° 
 16', where the outset or reflux was so great as to 
 prevent his entering for nine days." And Vancou- 
 ver adds: "This was probably the opening passed 
 by us on the forenoon of the 27th, and was appa- 
 rently inaccessible, not from the current, but from 
 the breakers that extended across it." — Vol. 2, page 
 43. Notwithstanding this communication by Gray, 
 Vancouver, relying on his own examinations, still 
 remained of the opinion (and he so records it) that, 
 "if any inlet or river should be found, it must be a 
 very intricate one, and inaccessible to vessels of our 
 burden, owing to the reefs, broken water," &c.; 
 and he concludes that he was "tl}orouglily con- 
 
 vinced" that he could "not po.ssibly 'have passed 
 any safe, navigable opening, harbor, or place of se- 
 curity for shipping on this coast, from Cape JMen- 
 docino to the promontory of Classet,"'the entrance 
 of the strait of Fuca. — Vol. 2, pages 58 and 59. 
 
 Only eight days after parting with Vancouver, 
 Gray discovered Bulfinch's iiarbor, between the 
 mouth of the Columbia and the strait of Fuca, and 
 remained three days in it. On the 11th May, 1792, 
 the day after he left Bulfinch's harbor, he saw, to 
 use his own words, "the entrance of our desired 
 port," and in a few hours was ancliored in "a large 
 river of fresh water," as he terms it, to which he gave 
 the name of the Columbia. He remained in the river 
 nine days, and sailed, as he states, more than twenty 
 miles up the channel from the bar at its entrance. 
 Thus was verified the conjecture of Heceta, who, 
 seventeen years before, saw an opening in' the coast, 
 which on the Spanish maps was called the river 
 St. Roc. Meares and Vancouver had asserted, in 
 the most positive manner, their conviction that no- 
 such river existed; yet when the fact was clearly as- 
 certained by Captain Gray, who had given copies 'of 
 his charts to Ciuadra, the Spanish commapder at 
 Nootka, Vancouver having procured (iopies frora 
 the latter, sent Lieutenant Broughton to examine 
 the river, and take formal possession of it. ' Brough- 
 ton not only performed both these services, but, for 
 the purpose of earning for himself the reputation of 
 a discoverer, he labored, in his account of his expe- 
 dition, to rob Captain Gray of the merit of discover- 
 ing the river, by the unworthy device of drawing a 
 distinction between the bay in which it debouches 
 and the upper part of the stream. Public opinion 
 has rejected this unmanly attempt; and Captain. 
 Gray is admitted by all fair-minded men to have 
 been the first person who entered the river and solved 
 the doubt which had long prevailed with regard to 
 its exiu<tence, while Vancouver, twelve days before 
 the discovery, had not hesitated to deny, on the 
 .strength of his own personal examination, made 
 "under the most t'avorable circumstances of wind 
 and weather," to use his own language, that no 
 such great river existed. This attempt onthe 'part 
 of Brougliton is the more unmanly, •from the fact 
 that he actually entered the mouth of the Columbia 
 with the aid of Gray's chart. I anti disposed. to ac- 
 quit Vancouver, in a great degree, from .all |iarlici- 
 palioii in the odium of this act. The'accourit of the 
 examination of the Columbia by Broughton, con- 
 tained in Vancouver's journal, though ' in the lan- 
 guage of the latter, is, in fact, a report-made by 
 Broughton, the commander of the party, as may 
 he seen by reference to the journal, volume 
 3, page 85. Vancouver more than nnce recogni.ses 
 Gray distinctly as the discoverer of the Columbia. 
 At page 388, volume 2, he expresses the hope iha't 
 he may be able, in his route to the southward, "to 
 re-examine the coast of New Albion, and particu- 
 larly a river and a harbor discovered by Mr. Gray 
 in the Columbia, between the 46th and 47th degrees 
 of north latitute, of which Seiior duadra had fa- 
 vored me with a sketch." At page 393, same vol- 
 ume, he says he directed that "Mr. Whidbey, ta- 
 king one of the Discovery's boats, should proceed in 
 the Da;dalus to examine Gray's harbor, said to be 
 situated in latitude 46° 53', whilst the Chatham and 
 Discovery explored the river Mr. Gray had discov- 
 ered in the latitude of 46° 10'." 
 
 Tha explorations of Vancouver, though they re- 
 sulted in a minute and critical examination of the 
 shores of the strait of Fuca, led to the discovery 
 of no new territory; and it is a singular fact, that 
 while this naval officer of Great Britain, himself 
 
8 
 
 an accomplished navigator, fuvni-she;] witli all the 
 means of making scientific investigations, was 
 pursuing the examinations, which were the great 
 purpose of his expedition, Captain Gray, in a trnd- 
 mg vessel, and in the prosecution of commercial ob- 
 jects alone, discovered the only two important open- 
 ings, the Columbia river and Bulfinch's harbor, on the 
 northwest coast, from the 40tli to the 48lh parallel 
 of latitude, where Vancouver, after the most critical 
 survey, had discovered none. 
 
 It is indeed an extraordinary circumstance that 
 the existence of all the great inlets in the coast, to 
 
 kn, and had departed from it as from a regular sta- 
 tion on a voyage of exploration to the straits of Fuca. 
 
 Biit there are more important errors to be corrected. 
 
 While Vancouver was surveying the strait of 
 Fuca, and the extensive inland "waters connected 
 wiih it Galiano and Valdes, two Spanish officers, 
 seiitout from Nootka sound, were engaged in the 
 same service. The two parties met on the 22d of 
 June, about the middio of the strait, near Point 
 Grey, above Frazer's river, and proceeded together 
 northerly, uniting their labors, and survcymg its 
 shores to a point near the extremity of the island of 
 
 which Great Britam now lays claim on the ground I duadra and Vancouver, betv.'een the 50ih and the 
 of discovery, was strenuously denied by the navi- j 5ist di;giees of north latitude, where they separated, 
 gators in her public service, \intil those inlets were | And here I desire to call the special attention of the 
 discovered and made known by others. We have I Senate to the Journal of Vancouver, who states 
 seen what Vancouver t^aid in relation to the coast that Seiior Galiano, who spoke a little English, in- 
 between the 40th and 48th parallels of latitude. On | formed him "that they had ari'ived at Nootlca on 
 the 22d of March, 1778, Cajitain Cook v.-as in lati- 1 the 11th of April, from whence they had sailed on 
 tude 48° 15' inspecting the coast. The promint:>ry of j the 5ih of this month, (June,) "in order to complete 
 Classet, (or Cape Flattery as he denominated it.) the ; tlie examination of tliis inlet, which had, in the pre- 
 aoutherncape at the entrance of the strait of Juan de | ceding year, been partly surveyed by some Spanish 
 Fuca, was in full view, and but a lew miles distant, i ofIict;rs, whose chart they produced." Observe, sir, 
 Hear wha the says in relation to the strait: the inlet (i e. the strait of Fuca,) about latitude 50°, 
 
 "It is in this very latitude where we now were thatgrojc-j partly surveyed and :, apped a year before Vancouver 
 
 raphers have placedthe pretended .trait of,iuo..delM.ca Bull ca,no on the coast. Vancouver then continues, 
 we saw iiothiujj hke jt;, nor k there the least probalulity | , om i o \ ^v^^.v-i i .^i ^.v/nniiuv^, 
 
 that any such thinr^ ever txistcJ."— Cook's Third Voy- i (.P^o^ .iW,vol. ^.i) 
 age, volume 2, page 26.3. 
 
 Now, however, Great Britain clairr;s the wliole 
 strait and the adjoining coimtiy by Vancouver's 
 discovery, though he himself admit.'! (as; we shall 
 see) that the Spaniards had surveyed and mapped 
 a portion of it before he arrived on the northwest 
 coast. 
 
 In the letten of the British plenipotentiary, Mr. 
 Pakenham, of the 29th July last, the fbllowing pas- 
 sage will be found at page 67, documents accompa-j C", north latitude; so tiiatthe Spaniards, before his 
 nying the President's m.e.ssage : . | arrival, by hia own acknowledgmeni, had examin 
 
 "I cannot avoid acknowledging that, on this occa.'sion. I 
 i-X|ierienct'(; no small degree ol' luoitification in linding the 
 external .'^liores of the gulf had been visited, and alre-idy 
 examined a Utw miles tieycnd where my researches during 
 the cxnirsion had extended, making the land 1 had been in 
 iJoul>t about an island; continuing neatly in the same direc- 
 tion atiout four leaj es further than had been seen by us 
 and by the Spaniards named Favida, [Kevcda.]" 
 
 By turning back to page 204, vol. 2, it will appear 
 that. Vancouver's examination terminated at 50*^ 
 
 'In 179-2, Vancouver, who had'been sent from Enstland to , ed the stait of Fu'^a to a point north of that paral- 
 
 ^itnessthefulfilmentofti.« above mentioned engagement, I lei; and by turning to page 249, vol. 2, it will be 
 
 the restitution ot buildini?s, >Scc., at Nootka, which, as h-^ts i ,i , ,-, ■.it- ~ n r ^i i .. 
 
 Iready been Been, were not to l,e fouii.i] and to effect a ' '"'-^".'.'"^V , partiUg With benor Galiano, the latter 
 
 survey of the northwest coast, .iepavtinsf from Nootlta I furnibhcd turn witn "a copy of his survey and other 
 
 sound entered the straits of Fuca ; and ai'tcr an accurate [ particulars lelative to the inlet of the seaj which 
 
 Burveyof the coasts and inlets on both sides, discovered a I contained also that part of the neighboring 
 passage northwards into the Pacific, by which he rennned I , , .• .i . i^ .u . •• /r 
 
 to Nootka, having thus circumnavigated the i?land w hirh i ^'^■^^' eMenomg northwestward from the straits of 
 now bears his name. And here we have, as far as relates to 1 De Fuca, beyond Nootka, to the latitude ot 50^^ 3' , 
 Vancoiivers island, as complete a case of discovery, explo- ' longitude 232'^ 48." 
 
 rviM'n'thiin'VhT"! ^"''" ^•e/!'^«P^<^^ented,givin- toj What, then, becomes of thi.s complete "case of 
 Orent Britain, in any arran2;emont tint maybe made with I ,■ ' J ■ j ..i [ „ ■ 
 
 regard to the territory in^di.cpnte, the strongest possible j '''•'"^O^'^^HS exploration, and settlement," in respect , 
 claim to the exclusive possession of the island " ' j?o Gloadra and Vancouver's island, and the strait of 
 
 To repel this assumption, the grounds of which , Fuca ? It is proved by Vancouver himself that the 
 the di.stinguished British plenipotentiary appcar.s Spaniards had partially surveyed and mapped the 
 not to have sufficiently invos'.igpted, Mr. Buchanan shores of the strait as high as 5'u° a year before he 
 briefly referred to )irevioii.s .examinations by the arrivnd on the coa.st. And if wo turn to his journal, 
 Spaniards. I now procpcd to show by Vancouver vol 2, page 3.'?9, it will be seen that Galiano and 
 himself that the assumption is entirely undustained Viddes arrived at Nootka on the 1st of September. 
 by the facts. _ three. days after him, by a "route through Glueen 
 
 In the first place, let me correct an error into Cha.-lotte's sound" round the northern point of the 
 which Mr. Pakenham has fallen at the outset, island, "to the southard of that which we had navi- 
 m saying that \/'ancouver, "departing from Nootka gated," -^nd of course following its shores more 
 sound," surveyed the straits of Fnca, circuninavi- closely than he. "The strongest possible claim to 
 gated the island which bears his name, and then re- the exclusive possession of the island," to use Mr. 
 turned to Nootka. Sir, Vancouver had never reen Pakenham's language, is not, therefore, a.s he asserts, 
 Nootka sound when he surveyed! the straits of Fu- ' in Great Britain; but, as shown by Vancouver him- 
 ca. He entered the straits on the 29'h of April, the self, it wa.i in Spain then, and is in us now. 
 evening of the day he met Capt. Gray, and pr«- ; But, sir, I have a word to say in relation to the 
 ceeded immediately to survey them, as nnv be seen whole subject of Vancouver's exploration. 
 by his journal, vol. 2, pages 40 and 52. He arrived '' It would seem that the Spaniards, in the autumn 
 at Nootka, for the first time, on ihe 28th of August, of 1793, had become distrustful of Vancouver's ob- 
 four months afterward.*! — page .334 same volume, jects in the survey of the northwest coast. At the 
 This correction is only important a.s repelling the bay of St. Francisco, although he had everywhere 
 inference which might have been drawn frorn the before liecn treated with a civility by the Spaniards, 
 fact, if it had been as stated by Mr. Pakenham, that for which his journal abounds in expressions of 
 Vancouver had been previously established atNoot- gratitude, he was subjected to restrictions which he 
 
„ unexpected, ungracious, and dcgrad- 1 which may possibly be typographical, were 
 
 " On his arrival at Monterrey on the 1st of No- 1 the only one, I should not have troubled the 
 iber the Spanish commander, Arrillaga, declined Senate with any reference to it. But there are 
 
 denominates 
 
 ing. 
 
 vember the Sp 
 
 holding any verbal communication with him, but 
 addressed to him questions in writing as to the ob- 
 jects of his voyage, to which Vancouver promptly 
 replied, (page 309, vol. 4,) 
 
 "That the voyage in which we were engaged was for the 
 general use and benefit of mankind, and that tinder these 
 circumstancfs. wc ought rather to bt considered as labor- 
 ing for the good of the world in general, than for the ad- 
 vantage of any particular sovereign, and that the court of 
 Spain would be more early informed, and as much benefit- 
 ed by my labors as the kingdom of Cireat Britain." 
 
 Here is the confession of Vancouver himself, that 
 there was no intention of interfering with the territo- 
 rial rights of Spain, and t'nat no special advantages 
 were sought for by Great Bi-itain. It is the highest 
 -evidence, the evidence of cotemporaneous exposition, 
 against the claims of the British plenipotentiary; and 
 it demolishes the whole fabric of the British title, so 
 far as it is built on Vancouver's explorations. 
 
 While on this part of the subject, I desire also to 
 call the attention of the Senate to the manner in 
 which the Oregon question has been discussed in 
 the British Parliament by some of the most distin- 
 guished members of both branches of that body. I 
 wish to do so for the purpose of correcting great m- 
 accuracics, and also for the purpose of showing 
 how imperfectly the subject appears to be under- 
 stood by those who, from their elevated positions, 
 are under the strongest moral obligations to possess 
 themselves of the truth, in order that the public 
 mind o:' Great Britain may not be misled and in- 
 =fiamed on their high authority. 
 
 In the House of Lords, on the 4th of April last, 
 immediately after the reception ef the President's 
 inaugural speech, the subject was brought forward 
 by the Earl of Clai'endon, not in the usual form of a 
 call on her Majesty's ministers for information, but 
 in pursuance of a notice vhich he had given on the 
 preceding day of his design to invite the attention 
 -of the House to the question. In the course of his 
 remarks, he undertook to give a sketch of the claims 
 of Great Britain and the United States to the terri- 
 tory of Oregon. I shall, in respect to the former, quote 
 his own words from the London Times, a source to 
 which we may confidently look for an accurate re- 
 port of his lordship's remarks. I shall coniinemyself 
 strictly to the question of title in all I have to say in 
 reference to these debates, avoiding carefully all al- 
 lusion to the offensive language with which they 
 ■ were in some instances connected: 
 
 "In the first place, my lords, if priority of discovery could 
 ^constitute title, our claim would be unquestionable; for Sir 
 F. Dr.ike, when he first visited thnt country in 15r.S, found 
 all the land tinappropriated. and took possession of it, 
 giving it the title of New Albion. I do not mean to say that 
 this constitutes a claim, but owing, subseiiuently, to a seiz- 
 ure of Britisli vessels at Nootka, and to ;i dispute which 
 arose in consequence, it was arranged by the treaty of the 
 Escurial tliat the subjects of the contracting parties should 
 not be molested in fishing and making settlements in parts 
 not hitherto occupied. In 1792, the country adjacent to 
 the Colum.bia river was taken possession of Ijy Cooke, and 
 was exploied in 1813 by the Northwestern Company, 
 now called the Hudson Bay Company, who establislied 
 themselves in Port .St. George, under the government of 
 British laws, continuing lo the present day, and being the 
 lirst establishm.ent in that country of a lawful and national 
 character, and recognised as sucii by foreign states." 
 
 In the paragraph I have reid there are numerous 
 errors in the statement of facts, and I must ask the 
 indulgence of the Senate while I point some of them 
 out. 
 
 1. Sir Francis Drake arrived on the northwest 
 coast of America in 1579, and not in 1558, as stated 
 by Lord Clarendon, making a difference of twenty- 
 one years in point of time. If this error of date, 
 
 graver misapprehensions in this statement. It 
 wdl be seen, that though Lord Carendon does 
 not venture to refer to sir Francis Drake's visit to 
 the northwest coast as constituting a title of itself, 
 he presents it as evidence of "priority of discovery." 
 Sir, that navigator can, in no just sense, be said to 
 have visited the disputed territory of which Lord 
 Clarendon was speaking. The territory commences 
 at the 42d parallel of latitude, and runs north to 54° 
 40'. Sir Francis Drake landed at 38°. He sailed 
 along the coast north of this parallel, according to 
 the best authorities only as high as 43°. Nor can 
 his visit, in any just sense, be regarded as a disco- 
 very. Thecountry including thebay of St. Francisco, 
 where he landed, was previously known. It had been 
 seen thirty years before as high as the 43d parallel 
 by Ferrelo, who was sent out by the viceroy of Mexi- 
 co, for the express purpose of exploring and ex- 
 tending the dominion of Spain over it; and it was 
 taken possession of at or near the very point where 
 Drake landed, and at various others, long before the 
 government of Great Britain claimed any right of 
 possession, growing out of this pretended discovery, 
 and the visits of her navigators to the northwest coast. 
 Besides, Drake's expedition was in the nature of 
 a piratical enterprise, arfd not an enterpri.se of le- 
 gitimate warfare. England and Spain were at 
 peace. It is true, the two sovereigns, Elizabeth 
 and Philip, were engaged in secret plots against 
 each other— the former by fomenting disturbances 
 in the Low Coimtries, and the latter by setting 
 on foot rebellions in Ireland; but it was several 
 years later before these intrigues broke out into 
 the open hostility, of which the chief incident was 
 the destruction of the invincible Armada. (Sir, the 
 contradiction of terr/ss is the work of history, not 
 mine.) Yet Elizabeth, after Drake's return to 
 England, on the application of the Spanish ambas- 
 sador complaining of his piraces, restored a por- 
 tion of the booty lie had taken, and by this resti- 
 tution admitted the unlawfulness of his expedition. 
 It is only necessary to look into Hume to see in 
 what light it has always been viewed by the eye of 
 legitimate history. Sir, it should need some bold- 
 ness, one would think, to set up a claim even to 
 "priority of di.scovery" on the basis of a transac- 
 tion like this! 
 
 2. Lord Clarendon states that the country adja- 
 cent to the Columbia river, was taken possession of 
 in 1792 by Captain Cook. Sir, Captain Cook never 
 saw the Columbia river, or landed^ in the immedi- 
 ately adjacent country. His visit was to Nootka 
 sound, on the island of Gluadra and Vancouver, 
 separated from the continent by the strait of Fuca. 
 His voyage is referred by Lord Clarendon to the 
 year 1792. It was, in foct, made in 1778, fourteen 
 years before the Columbia river was entered or even 
 certainly known to e^ist. Ten years after Cook'3 
 voyage to the coast, Meares, on whose exploiaiipns 
 the British government partially rests its title, re- 
 ported he could say with certainty, no such river as 
 the St. Roc (the Columbia) existed. Four years 
 later still, Vancouver, after a most careful examina- 
 tion of the coast, came to the same conclusion, as 
 we have seen. Sir, Lord Clarendon evidently con- 
 founded the voyage of Cook with that of Vancou- 
 ver, without an accurate reference to either. 
 
 3. It is equally erroneous to say, that the north- 
 west company explored the country in 1813, and 
 established themselves in Port St. George. Explora- 
 tions had been made, first by Lewis and Clarke, mil:- 
 
10 
 
 tary officers in the service of the United States, and 
 then by Thompson and others, in the service of the 
 British^ and American fur companies. But no 
 particular explorations, I believe, were made in 
 the year referred to. The stock and property of 
 the American company at Astoria were sold to the 
 Northwest company in thai year; but the place 
 v/as restored to the United States in 1813, 
 and no attempt was made by the government 
 of Great Britain to extend its laws over any part of 
 the territory until 1821, eight years after the time at 
 which Lord Clarendon re|)resents Astoria as being 
 under the government of British laws, having the 
 character of a national establishment of Great 'Brit- 
 ain, and recognised as such by foreign nations. Sir, 
 it has never possessed such a national character, or 
 been so recognised. If his lordship had taken the 
 tsouble to look at the statement of the British com- 
 missioners, "(Messrs. Huskisson and Addington,) 
 in 1826, he would have found they distinctly de- 
 nied that it was "a national possession" or "a mil- 
 itary post" in the hands of the Americans; and they 
 endeavored to show by argument that it was not 
 such m the hands of the Northwest Company after 
 its purchase. Its restoration to us in 1618 is in com- 
 patible with the assumption that it has such a na- 
 tional character now. The assumption is equally 
 mconsistent with the conditior^s of the treaties be- 
 tween Great Britain and the United States, which 
 virtually preclude such an exclusive exercise of 
 sovereignty on her part as to give any establish- 
 ments made by her subjects a character of nation- 
 ality. Nay, sir, it is inconsistent with the claims of 
 Great Britain herself, whose commissioners in 
 1S'J6 expressly renounced al! pretensions to a ri^ht 
 ot exclusive sovereignty over any portion of Die 
 Oregon territory. It is difficult to fancy a paragraph 
 of as many words so replete with error as the 
 one on which I am commenting. 
 
 I regret to say that the subject was presented to 
 the House of Commons wilh,'if pog.^ihlc, still great- 
 er- misrepresentations, and from an equallv distin- 
 guished source; though I might not have felt myself 
 called on to notice them, but for their connexion 
 with the incidents I have been examining, and par- 
 ticularly the question of title. 
 
 The subject was introduced into the House of 
 Commons by Lord John Russell, much in the same 
 manner as it was presented to the House of Lords— 
 not in the skape of a call for information, but in the 
 nature of a protest ag.unst .some of the positions 
 taken by the President in his inaugural speech. This 
 gentleman IS a distinguished member of the whig 
 pariy, a member of a former ministry, and was re° 
 cently called on by her majesty to form another, 
 but did not succeed. I will nov/ read to the Senate 
 that part of his lordship's remarks v/hich relates 
 to tne discovery of the Columbia river, one of the 
 principal historical facts on which the United States 
 rest their claim to the Oregon territory: 
 
 "Now, it appears that Captain Vancouver was srnt .-.,.! 
 by the British government to discover the line of coast and 
 to take possession of certain parts laid down in hi ; instruc- 
 tiOBs; and here we come to another part of the clai.ajs of the 
 Unitodstates— to apart of their claims where they put in 
 their claim to discovery upon a transaction which 1 will 
 now proceed to relate. It appears that a merchant vessel 
 called tae Columbia, under a Captain Gray, discovered 
 an inlet, which was supposed to be an inlet of a river 
 it appears that after some days in the month of Ma- 179-' 
 passed partly at anchor and partly in endeavoring to'ascer- 
 tain the limits of that bay, that this vessel sailed out again 
 into the Pacific ocean. There is a very clear account ffiven 
 by Captain Gray, the commander of that vessel, that 'after 
 some days,' he says, 'we thought we had found a channel 
 we lound we were mistaken. There is no channel in the 
 part which we endeavored to penetrate, and therefore we 
 
 'must return Shortly after this, Captain Vancouver arrived 
 on the coast. He not only went into the same inlet, but he 
 senc his lie«tenfiiit-a Lieutenant Broii<?hton-to discover 
 lie river, and to go in a boat to a distance up the river 
 Lieutenant Broughton was more successful than Captain 
 (.ray. He actually discovered the entrance of the Columbia 
 Tivcr. He went up it in his boat several davs, to the dis- 
 tance, I think, of some 90 or 100 miles. He discovered the 
 territory surrounding it. It was agreed that the river should 
 be cal!e;-t hy the name of Columbia, and Lieutenant Brouffh- 
 ton returned to his ship. But Captain Vancouver took pog- 
 session of that river, the coast adjacent, and the Nootka 
 seund, in the name of )iis majesty the king of F.ngland. 
 (Hear, hear.) Then, sir, there was something of valid title." " 
 
 1 confess it was with equal regret and surprise 
 that I read this statement of a transaction which has 
 beconie matter of history, and in respect to the facts 
 of which there is no reasonable ground for serious- 
 misconception. I have looked in vain for the quo- 
 tation Lord John Russell professes to make from 
 Captain Gray. There is no such statement in the 
 only account which I have seen given by the lat- 
 ter of the discovery of the Columbia river— the 
 certified copy of his log in the State Department. His 
 lordship goes on to state that Vancouver shortly af- 
 ter arrived on the coast, and not only went into the 
 inlet, but sent in Lieutenant Broughton, "who ac- 
 tually discovered the entrance to the Columbia 
 river." Now, the Senate will observe that, in or- 
 der to sustain this most unauthorized assumption, 
 almost all the important facts relating to the 
 discovery of the Columbia river— facts shown 
 by Vancouver's own journal— are kept out of 
 view:— the meeting of "Gray with Vancouver on 
 the 29th April, 1792, five months previously, 
 near the strait of Puca; the information given by 
 Gray to the latter of the discovery of the river, and 
 of hi.s unsuccessful attempts to enter it; the in- 
 credulity of Vancouver, and his continued con- 
 viction that no such river existed; the return of 
 Gray to the river, his success in entering it, the 
 arrival of Vaniiouver at Nootka where he obtained 
 copies of Gray's charts left with Quadra, by the aid 
 of which Vancouver, was enabled to find the stream, 
 and send up his lieutenant, Broughton, to explore it. 
 I say, sir, all these material facts are suppres.sed — I 
 trust not intentionally— to sustain thewnfounded as- - 
 sumption that Broughton was the discoverer of the 
 Columbia. But it is worthy of remark that Mr. Fal- 
 coner, a respectable British writer, v/ho has recently 
 published a pamphlet on Oregon, and who wrote 
 about the time Lord John Russell spoke, atlmits that 
 Gray was the first person who noticed the Columbia 
 river after Heceta, and concedes the discovery to the 
 latter. Happily, the historical facts are too well au- 
 thenticated to be permanently misunderstood. They 
 were so well known at the time, that even the ri- 
 valry—not to say the detraction— of the day conced- 
 ed'to Gray the merit of the discovery by deeignating 
 the river by the name he gave it— the name of the 
 vessel that first entered its waters. In regard to the 
 rttempt to restrict Gray's discovery to the bay or 
 mouth of the river, it is only necessary to say that 
 the settlement at Astoria is universally admitted to 
 be on the Columbia river. Is it not so, sir.' It is 
 designated "the settlement on the Columbia river," 
 m the despatch of Earl Bathurst directing it to be re- 
 stored to us in 1818, as well as in the act of restora- 
 tion. Now, sir, Capt. Gray ascended the river not 
 only as high as Astoria, which is ten miles from the 
 Pacific ocean, but at least six miles above it accord- 
 ing to Bi-oughton himself. Look at the vnap of 
 Oregon on your table, by Capt. Wilkes, and you 
 will find Gray's bay, so named by Broughton, (see 
 Vancouver's journal, vol. 3, page 92,) •n the north 
 side of the Columbia and higher up than Astoria. 
 According to Gray's own log, he anchored the day 
 
11 
 
 he discovered and entered the river, ten miles above i responsibility to the criticism of other nations, and 
 the entrance, and three days after he sailed | the general judgment of mankind. No, sir ! It is' 
 
 twelve or fifteen miles higher up. He must, there- 
 fore, have been from six to fifteen miles above the 
 site of the netllement at Astoria. What, then, be- 
 comes of the attempt of Eroughton, revived by British 
 statesmen, not negotiators, (no negotiator at this I 
 day would so risk his reputation,) to restrict Gray's 
 discovery to the mouth of the steam I 
 
 Lord John Russell's statement is equally errone- 
 ous in other particulars — erroneous in saying that 
 Vancouver entered the Columbia, or the inlet — er- 
 roneous in saying that he took possession ofNootlta 
 sound. His vessel, the Discovery, did not pass the 
 
 ore frequently the "tirade" of the politician, by 
 which the public mind of Great Britain is made to 
 pronounce judgment upon great questions of inter- 
 national right and duty. 
 
 These misrepresentations are still m.ore to be re- 
 gretted, because they constitute the basis of the 
 statements which find their way to the continent. 
 Through Galignani's Messenger, the echo of the 
 British press, they are translated into French, and 
 widely circulated, poisoning the whole public mind 
 of the continent, and exciting prejudice against us. 
 
 I will only add, that the Earl of Aberdeen in one 
 
 bar at the mouth of the Columbia river; he did not house, and Sir Robert Peel in the other, adverted to 
 take possession of Nootka; Gluadra refused to make these statements in a maimer which, though not al- 
 
 a formal surrender of anything but Meares's 
 cove, which he would not acccept; and the formality 
 of taking possession of the Columbia river was per- 
 formed by Eroughton, after Vancouver had left the 
 ■coast, much in the same way as it had been done 
 ten years before by the Spaniards, who were the 
 first discoverers and explorers of the country. I 
 repeat, and I say it with regret, that besides the er- 
 rors in pointof fact, the leading and material circum- 
 stancea connected with the discovery of the Colum- 
 bia river are kept out of view. 1 do not expect Brit- 
 ish statesmen to produce arguments in fivor of the 
 American title; but when they undertake to refer 
 to historical facts resting on their own authori- 
 tiee, and in their own possession, they are bound to 
 state them with accuracy. Sir, we may excuse 
 illogical deductions from admitted data; we may 
 look with indulgence on differences of opinion in re- 
 gard to the same facts, knowing, as v/e do, our lia- 
 bility to be biased by prejudice or by too partial 
 views of personal or national interest. But for an 
 omission of essential circumstances in the discus- 
 sion of an important national question, a discus- 
 sion entered upon voluntarily for the purpose of 
 enlightening the public mind of a nation, there 
 can be no apology, even though it arise from 
 want of a sufficiently careful examination of the 
 subject. On the Oregon question it ia well 
 known that great excitement existed at the time 
 in Great Britain and the United States — an ex- 
 citement which exists still, though happily some- 
 what abated — an excitement which needs, per- 
 haps, but little provocation to break out into open 
 hostility; and no man who appreciates, as he ought, 
 the calamity of an interruption of the amicable rela- 
 tions which exist between us, should be willing to 
 incur the responsibility of misleading the public 
 judgment of either country; or, if he does raisdirect 
 it, lie should at least have the consolation of reflect- 
 ing that it was through erroneous deductions, and not 
 a misstatement of facts fairly within his knowledge. 
 The misrepresentations to which I have alluded 
 are the more to be regretted, for the reason, if I do 
 not err, that they constitute almost the only views 
 of the subject which reach the great mass of the 
 British people. In this country, statements of both 
 sides of great natiotial questions are equally dif- 
 fused. Look at our newspapers, and thej' will 
 be found filled with the diplomatic correspondence 
 between the British and American plenipotenti- 
 aries. The letters of Mr. Packenham are pub- 
 lished with those of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Bu- 
 chanan, and are as widely circulated. All read, 
 compare, and judge them. It is not so in Great 
 Britain. As a general rule, the British side of the 
 question only is presented to the British public. 
 Nor is it the official argunaent of the government, 
 drawn op by the diplomatist, under a sense of his 
 
 together unexceptionable, v/as in general dignified 
 and statesmanlike; and it is earnestly to be hoped 
 that the better feeling which now exists between 
 the two countries may continue unabated, and lead 
 to a settlement of the question on teims honorable- 
 to both. 
 
 I feel that I owe an apology to the Senate for this 
 long digression. [ trust it will be found in the con- 
 sideration that the inaccuracies 1 have endeavored 
 to point out, did not go to the world with the mere 
 weight of an ordinary legislative debate, but with- 
 all the evidences of deliberation and arrangement; 
 and, therefore, calculated to be mo^e dangerous in 
 propagating error. 
 
 It was now three o'clock, and Mr. D. gave way^ 
 to a motion of Mr. Sevier to adjourn. 
 
 Thursday, February 19, 1S46. 
 
 Mr. DIX was about to resume his remarks which- 
 he had not concluded at the hour of adjournment 
 yesterday, but yielded the floor to 
 
 Mr. J. M. CLAYTON, who said he desired an 
 opportunity to offer a few remarks relative to an al- 
 lusion made to him by the senator from New York, 
 [Mr. Dix,] in the opening of his spetch yesterday. 
 He is reported to have said : 
 
 " In entering into the dnbate on the question under con- 
 sifleiation, lice! oonstraiaed to difl'or in Ojiiaion with 'tw& 
 distinguished semitors who have preceded me, in ri-lation 
 to the manner in which the discussion should he. condticted. 
 1 allude to the senator from Ohio, [Mr. Ali em,] who opened 
 the debate, and the senator from Delaware, [Iiir. Clayton,] 
 who followed him. Both took the ground, and vvith equally- 
 strong language, that the title to Oregon ought not to be 
 drawn info this discussion, but for totally diieient reasons 
 —the senator from Ohio, because the time for discussing it 
 had gone by, and the senator from Belawaie, because the 
 time for discussing it had not arrived. With the unfeigned 
 respect which I entertain for both senators, I dissent from 
 their opinions with great diffidence of my own." 
 
 As the senator said, he (Mr. C) was temporarily 
 absent from his seat, but came in a few minutes af- 
 ternhe senator had made that remr>rk. He had mis- 
 taken his (Mr. C.'s) position. When he had the 
 honor of addressing the Senate on the 12th inst., he 
 did object to the discussion of the title in open ses- 
 sion, but he avowed distinctly at the time his perfect 
 wdlingness to enter at any moment o'"i that discus- 
 sion in executive session. He did not mean to say, 
 nor did he think that he was generally understood 
 at the time as meaning to say, that he objected to the 
 discussion of the question at thtit very moment. 
 On the contrary, he thought that he expressed hjs 
 willingness to go into it then, if his associates in the 
 Senate wished to do so — but in executive session. 
 And he begged the senator to recollect the reason 
 which he assigned why the discussion should be so 
 conducted. He said, that, if the question were to 
 be settled by treaty between the two governments, 
 the remarks made in open session were calculated 
 to prejudge, and must necessarily prejudge, the 
 
12 
 
 '•question which would arise upon the treaty. He 
 tnought then, amU he thought so still, that if the 
 • question were to be settled in that manner, great 
 danger might arise from these i)ublic discussions, 
 because it would be recollected that it took but nine- 
 teen of them to defeat any treaty; and if the discus- 
 sion became extended, as was very likely, there 
 was danger that nineteen senators might become so 
 committed before the whole country in regard to the 
 title, and differing from the Executive, why, then, 
 was it not obvious that their consideration of the 
 treaty would be seriously trammelled? On the other 
 hand, he thouj^ht then, and thought still, lliat if dis- 
 cussed in executive session, no such difficulty could 
 occur; no man would be then committed before the 
 country. But open dis'-ussion was attended with 
 the danger of so many men committing themselves 
 on some prirallel of latitude different from that pre- 
 sented in the treaty. 
 
 Mr. DIX then proceeded with his remarks, and 
 said: 
 
 I beg the senator from Delaware to be assured 
 that nothing would give me more pain than to 
 misstate any senator on this floor; and I accept 
 with great pleasure the explanation which he 
 has made. I desire also to say, in justice to 
 him, as well as to the senator from Ohio, that I did 
 not use the. term "peremptoriness" in referriiig to 
 the manner in which they had insisted that the 
 question of title ought not, in their opinion, to be 
 discussed. I said they had taken the position in 
 equally strong ls;nguage. 
 
 I now rc.soine the consideration of the important 
 question r !i which I had the honor to address the 
 Senate yesterday; and in doing so, I cannot with- 
 hold the cn nression of my sense of the kind indul- 
 gence which has been extended to me. I will en- 
 deavor to (illoid the Senate a substantial proof of that 
 sense of oMigation on my part, by bringing my re- 
 marks to a 'lose in the briefest possible period of time. 
 
 The his'.orical sketch v/hich I was making Vv'hen 
 the Senate udjourned of the discoveries and establish- 
 ments in Oregon yesterday, ended with the year 1792. 
 
 The discovery of Bulfinch's harbor and the Co- 
 lumbia rivvr by Gray, and the explorations of Gal- 
 liano, Vault's, and Vancouver, in the strait of Fuca, 
 in that year, terminated the series of maritime dis- 
 coveries in (he disputed territory, v>?h!ch had com- 
 menced two centuries and a half ijefore. From that 
 time to the present, nothing has been done on the 
 coast but to fill up the smaller details of the great 
 outline coiiijileted by the labors of these navigators. 
 
 In the ;-ame year, (1792,) Mackenzie, leaving 
 Fort Chipi^ijwyan, on the Athabasca lake, in the 
 58th paratiel of latitude, and nearly midway be- 
 tween the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, proceeded 
 westward i^i the Rocky mountains, where he passed 
 the winter. The next spring he resumed his jour- 
 ney, struck ihe Tacoutche Tessee, in the 54th paral- 
 lel of latitiiile, (now Frazer's river,) and descended 
 it aome250 iuilea. He then continued his course 
 to the wefit, and reached the Pacific in north latitude 
 52° 20' — about a degree north of the island of duadra 
 and Vancouver. Frazer's river, which takes its rise 
 near the 5oth parallel of latitude, was for nineteen 
 years supji'-ied to bo the northern branch of the 
 Columbia; but in 1812 it wtis ascertained by Frazerto 
 debouche in the slrfiit of Fuca, at the 49th i^ara 'el 
 of latitude. It waters the district of country imme- 
 diately W'?.?t and north of the valley drained by the 
 upper bramh of the Columbia. Tliis district is a 
 part of Vi'i great section of the northwest coast 
 bounded 0(\ ilie east by the Rocky moimtains, and 
 on the west by the Pacific, of which the main chan- 
 
 nel.? of access had been laid open by previous dis- 
 coveries. 
 
 In 1804, Captains Lewis and Clarke set out oa 
 their expedition to Oregon; and in 1805, after in- 
 credible hardships and labors, they established 
 themselves on the north side of the Columbia river, 
 near its mouth, and subsequently on the south side, 
 and passed the winter there. In the spring of 1806, 
 they commenced their journey homeward, and 
 reached the Mississippi in the fall of that year, hav- 
 ing travelled over 9,000 miles. This expedition was 
 fitFed out under the direction of the government of 
 the United States, and executed by officers in its ser- 
 vice at the public expense. It was undertakeii on 
 the recommendation of the President, communi- 
 cated in a message to Congress m 1803. One of its 
 objects was to examine the country watered by the 
 Columbia river, which had been discovered by a 
 citizen of the United States; and it resulted in a sur- 
 vey — neces-^arily cursory — of the main southern 
 branch of the liver, of the principal stream to its 
 mouth from the junction of the latter with it, and of 
 a portion of Clarke's river, which empties into the 
 northern branch between the 48th and 49th parallel-^j 
 of latitude. This was the first exploration of the 
 Columbia made subsequently to 1792, when it was 
 ascended by Gray, its discoverer, some twenty 
 miles, and five months after by a detachment from 
 Vancouver's party, under Broughton, about one 
 hundred miles from its mouth. 
 
 It is also to be considered that the expedition of 
 Lewis and Clarke was undertaken immediately af- 
 ter the cession of the territory of Louisiana to the 
 United States by France — a territory admitted 
 to include all the country drained by the Mis- 
 sissippi and its tributaries to their head wa- 
 ters. It was also the understanding at the time 
 that it was separated from the British possessions 
 in North America by the 49th parallel of latitude 
 extended westward from the Lake of the Woods 
 indefinitely. Mr. Monroe in a paper presented to 
 Lord Harrowby in 1804, at London, stated that it 
 had been so settled by commissaries appointed by 
 France and England under the treaty of Utrecht; 
 and the statement was not impugned oj objected 
 to. I am aware that a doubt exists whether such 
 a line was agreed on; but after nearly a century 
 and a half, it is questionable whether an arrange- 
 ment wliich had been acquiesced in [Col. Bentov 
 here added — and acted on] as having been made by 
 the competent authority at the proper time, can be 
 denied even though no authentic record of the meet- 
 ing of the commissaries can be found." Other per- 
 sons were employed by the government to surve)'' 
 the southern portions of Louisiana, and these cotein 
 fiorancous expeditions must be regarded by the 
 j world as a public manifestation nf the intention of 
 the United States to assert all the rights she niiglit 
 justly claim by discovery or otherwise to the sov- 
 I ereignty nf the country between the Mississippi 
 and the Pacific ocean. 
 
 I In 1806 Mr. Frazer, an agent of the Northwest 
 f Company, formed an establishment on Frazer's 
 I lake in the 54th parallel of latitude; and tiiis was 
 I the first establishment ever made by British subjects 
 west of the Rocky mountains. 
 
 In March, 1811, the Pacific Fur Company, of which 
 John Jacob Astorof N.York was the principal, form- 
 ed an establishment at Astoria, on the south bank of 
 the Columbia river, about ten miles from its mouth, 
 having first established themselves on the north 
 
 *See an elaborate examination of this question in Green- 
 how's Oregon, page 27(3. 
 
13 
 
 bank; and this was the first settlement ever made on i 
 the Columbia or in the territory watered by that \ 
 river or its tributaries, excepting two temporary 
 establishments in 1809 and 1810, formed also by | 
 American citizens, which were soon abandoned m 
 consequence of the difficulty of obtaining provisions 
 and other embarrassments. The Astoria company 
 rJ.so formed an establishment in 1811, on the Oka- 
 nagon, a tributary entering the Columbia on the 
 north side, between the 48th and the 4Sth parallels 
 of latitude; and in 1812 another near it on the Spo- 
 kan, also a tributary of the great river. 
 
 in 1813 the Pacific Company, in consequence of 
 the embarrassments grov/ing out of the war of 
 1812 with Great Britain, sold "its establishments, 
 furs, and stock in hand" (including the posts on 
 the Okanagan and the 'Spokan) to the Nortliweat 
 Company; and a few days afterwards the British 
 sloop-of-w?.r Raccoon arrived, took possession of 
 the place, and hoisted the British flag. 
 
 By the treaty of Ghent, ratified by us in 1815, it 
 v/as stipulated that "all territory, places, and posses- 
 sions whatsoever taken by either party from the other 
 during the war, or which may be taken after the sign- 
 ing of this treaty, excepting only the islands here- 
 inafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay." 
 
 in compliance with this stipulation the establish- 
 ment at Astoria was restored to the United States. 
 The compliance was full, unconditional, and with- 
 out reservation of any sort. No claim was set up 
 by Great Britain in her written communications 
 v/ith the United States on this subject, at the time 
 of the restoration, in respect to any right of sover- 
 eignty or domain in the territoi-y thus restored. 
 The Sritish minister at Washington had, it is true, 
 a year before objected to the restoration on tlie 
 ground that the place had been purcbased by the 
 Northwest Company, and thatit had "been taken 
 possession of in his majesty's name, and had been 
 since considered as forming part of his majesty's^ 
 dominions." The objection was virtually abandon 
 ed by the restoration; and as the place was restored 
 without a v/ritten protest or reservation, the ground 
 of the objection maybe regarded as having been 
 considered j,who!ly untenable by those who took 
 it. In this transaction, as in all others relating to 
 the territory of Oregon, the government of tlie 
 United States maintained m clear and unequivocal 
 terms its right of sovereignty. In its instructions to 
 Cap:,. Biddie in 1817, it directed him to proceed to 
 'the inouih of the Columbia, and there "to assert the 
 claim of tile United States to the sovereignty of the 
 adjacent country, m a friendly and peaceable man- 
 ner, and without the employment of force." This 
 order he executed on the 9th of August, 1818, by 
 taking formal possession of the country on the river. 
 The Jbrmal restoration of Astoria was made on the 
 Cth of October, 1818; and in fourteen days after- 
 wards (on the 20th October) a convention was 
 agreed on by the United States and Great Britain, 
 containing the following article: 
 
 "Akt. 3. it is agreed that any country tiiat may be claim- 
 ed by either party on the northwest coast of America, 
 westward ol' the Stony mountains, shall, together with its 
 harbors, bays, and creeks, and tlie navigation of all rivers 
 within the same, be free and open for the term ol ten years 
 iVom the date of the signature of the present convention, 
 to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of tlie two powers: it 
 being well understood that this agreement Is not to be con- 
 strued to the prejudice of any claim which' either of the two 
 high contraeting parties may have to any part of said coun- 
 try, nor sjiall it be taken to afl'ect the ciaims of any other 
 power or Stale to any part of the said country, the only ob- 
 ject of the high contracting parties, in (hat respect, being 
 to prevent disputes and differences among themselves."' 
 
 On the Cth of August, J 827, the main provisions 
 
 of the foregoing article were renewed by the fol- 
 lowing convention. 
 
 "Art. 1. All the provisions of the third article of the con- 
 vention concluded between the United States of America 
 an'.i liis Majesty the King of tlie United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland, on the -iOth of October, 181S, shall be, 
 and they are hereby, further indefinitely e.xtended and con- 
 tinued in force, in the same manner as if all the provisions 
 of the said article were herein specjtically recited. 
 
 "Akp. i. It shall be competent, however, to either of the 
 contracting parties, in case either should tb ink fit, at any 
 time after the 20th tDctober, lS-23, on giving due notice of 
 twelve months to the other contracting party, to annul and 
 abrogate this convention; and it shall, in such case, be ac- 
 cordingly en'.irely annulled and abrogated, after the expi- 
 ration of the said term of notice. 
 
 "Art. 3. Nothing contained in this convention, or in the 
 tliird article of the convention of the iuth of October, lt;i8, 
 hereby routinuej in force, siiall be co.rHrutd to ivipuir, or in 
 an!/ .'i.T.r.iuT njj'i r' , the claims v/hich either of the contracting 
 paiU'j< may huve to any part of the country westward of 
 the Stony or Rocky mountains."' 
 
 On the basis of lhe.se two treaties the relations of 
 the two countries in respect to Oregon nov/ rest; 
 and in order to ascertain what are the rights of th.e 
 contracting parties to the territory in dispute we 
 must revert to the year IblS, to the slalu quo be- 
 fore they v/ere entered into; for if, as has been seen, 
 nothing contained in the treaties can prejudice in 
 any vnanner their respective claims, no acts done 
 since by settlementor otherwise can create, in re- 
 spect to the. territory in question, any rights which 
 did not exist then. 
 
 This position was taken with characteristic vio;or 
 and brevity by the distinguished senator from South 
 Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] sitting before me, in a 
 note dated the 3d of September, 184 i, and address- 
 ed to Mi\ Pakenham, wiiiie tiie senator was acting 
 in the capacity of a negotiator. 
 
 Sir, I v.isir to be distinctly understood on this 
 point, for t!ie reason that the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 in wliich the Northwest Company has been n.erged, 
 lias for several years been extending its estab- 
 lishments, and because, in the. negotiations between 
 the British government and ours, it has been 
 once, at least, if not more than once, intimated 
 by the former that British subjects had in- 
 terests there which it was bound to protect. 
 These establishments have been made with full 
 kno\vlc;!ge of the stipulations of the conventions en- 
 tered into between the two countries; and dn no 
 ground, even the ground of equity, can any claim 
 be set up on the basis of these newly-created in- 
 terests. To agree to suspend the settlement of the 
 controversy, and then to draw from acts done by one 
 of the parties during the supension new arguments 
 in fjvor of its own side of the question, is not only 
 repugnant to every rule of fairness, but it is a vio- 
 lation of the letter as well as the spirit of the agree- 
 ment, and tends to the defeat of the very object in 
 view in making it. 
 
 Let us see, then, what discoveries had been made, 
 and what establishments formed, in 1818. Those of 
 Spain were paramount to all others. She had vis- 
 ited and explored the whole coast from California, 
 where she had permanent establishments, to the most 
 northerly line of the territory in dispute. She had dis- 
 covered the strait of Juan de Fuca, and formed an es- 
 tablishment within it I think in 1790. She had 
 discovered Nootka sound, and established herself 
 there. And she was strengthened in her claims to 
 the absohite sovereignty of the country by its im- 
 mediate contiguity to California, of which she had 
 the undisputed and undivided possession, with 
 the exception of two temporary establishments by 
 the Russians between the bay of St. Francisco and 
 Cape Mendocino, which were made to focilitate 
 
14 
 
 their trade in furs, and by permission of the Spanish 
 government. It is true she had not kept up her 
 ■establishrnenrs north of Cape Mendocino; but no 
 others had l'f<:n formed in the same localities; and 
 her rights of discovery, therefore, were not super- 
 seded by rights of occupation on the part of other na- 
 tions in any portion of the territory in dispute, 
 excepting so fir as they may have been derived from 
 the American and British establishments, to which 
 1 am about to refer. 
 
 The United States had di^^covered the Columbia 
 river, and a^-'ended it at the time of the discovery 
 to the distance of twenty-five miles from its mouth. 
 She had also discovered Bulfinch's harbor, between 
 the Columbia and the strait of Fuca. She had ex- 
 amined the country watered by the Columbia and 
 some of its tributaries, and she had formed estab- 
 lishments within it at four different periods — in 1809, 
 1810, 1811, "lid 1812 — the most southerly near the 
 rwouth of t! e Columbia, and the most northerly 
 between th.- 48th and 49th parallels of lati- 
 tude. SpiUii claimed to have discovered the 
 Columbia ; • venteen years before Gray enter- 
 ed it; but 111 18'21 she ceded all her rights to 
 the country north of 42° to the United States, by 
 treaty, and'hus gave us a title to the territory wa- 
 tered by the. river which Great Britain ought never 
 to have cple^ ioned. By virtue of the same act of 
 cession her I Hire right to the coast became vested 
 lin us. 
 
 In thecoiu ;e of the public discussions in respect to 
 Oregon, the United Stales has been charged with 
 dishonor anl l>ad faith in setting up a claim to that 
 territory, \^t, by discovery, through the agencj'' of 
 her own citi;..-ns; and 2d, by cession of the rights of 
 Spain. For, as has been said, if the first ground was 
 tenable, she cmld not, without inconsistency, setup 
 a claim on the second, because she had virtually de- 
 nied the second by assuming the first as the basis of 
 Jier right. F>L>t, sir, is it not quite po.ssible for two 
 nations to possess rights by conriguity, or to ac- 
 quire them 'V discovery, neither perfect, but ca[ia- 
 ble of being i : lulered so by a merger of both in one? 
 Great Brita' i herself claims a right of joint occu- 
 pancy with :he United States in Oregon; and she 
 will certainlv not deny that a cession of her right to 
 us; or ours l^ her, would create a perfect title to the 
 country, wit .,ut affording cause for any imputation 
 of dishonor to either. 
 
 Gretit Brit.,in in 1818 had surveyed the strait of 
 Fuca, after its outlines were known, but she had 
 made no discoveries on the coast which were not 
 comprehended within the -boundaries of the great 
 districts previously known and visited. She may 
 have had esiHbli>.hments in tlie valley of tl\e Colum- 
 bia; but if so I have not been ab'e lo ascertain the 
 fact. She hau discovered Fiazer'.s river, which emp- 
 ties into the ;trait of Fuca at the 49th jiarallel of lat- 
 itude; she hr-d traced it fr<im its source to its mouth; 
 she had formed an establishment on it near the 54th 
 parallel; and it only remains to settle by the testimo- 
 ny of facts t: ft gengraphical relation v/hich this river 
 and its valley bear to the river and valley of tlie Co- 
 lumbia. 
 
 I pass by, as unconnected with the question, for 
 •the reasoiis I have assigned, all settlements made 
 subsequently to 1818 by the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 on which Gr ;at Britain ha.s conferred large and most 
 important p^ wers in respect to the couritry west of 
 the Rocky u ountains. Indeed, these eslabiislments 
 rest upon no legal concession, even by herself, which 
 confers any right of domain. The Hudson's Bay 
 
 Company has a mere right of exclusive trade with 
 the Indians, without the privilege of acquiring any 
 title to the soil in Oregon; and in this respect the 
 privileges of the company differ materially from 
 those conferred on it in relation to the territory it 
 pos?!esses upon Hudson's straits. 
 
 I also pass by as idle the formalities of taking 
 possession of the country by Broughton on the Co- 
 lumbia, and Vancouver in the strait of Fuca — for- 
 malities a long time before performed in numberless 
 localities by the Spaniards — especially as those of 
 the British navigators were unaccompanied by actu- 
 al settlement and occupation, and were in direct vio- 
 lation of a treaty which those officers were sent out 
 lo execute.' 
 
 I have endeavored, Mr. President, in the 
 first part of my remarks to maintain the Spanish 
 title to the northwest coast of America. I re- 
 gard all attempts to disparage it as antiquated and 
 obsolete, to b e founded upon partial and illiberal 
 views of the subject. It is unnecessary to say to 
 you, sir, or the Senate, that antiquity is the highest 
 element of title, if the chain can be traced down 
 unbroken and entire to our own times. The 
 Spanish title to the northwest coast is almost coeval 
 with the voyages of Columbus. It is consecrated 
 by discovery as high as the 4.3d parallel of latitude, 
 by the lapse of more than three centuries, as 
 high as the 48th by the lapse of two centuries 
 and a half, and as high as the 54tli by the lapse 
 of more than seventy years. Sixty years ago 
 it stood undisputed and uniin peached by any 
 antagonist claim or pretension to territorial rights. 
 It was confirmed and perfected by occupation 
 as high as 49° 30' half a century ago. During 
 the succeeding twenty years, it was not superseded 
 by rif^hts of occupation on the part of other nations, 
 unless it be to the limited extent I have stated. During 
 the last thirty years, all rights have been suspended 
 by treaty arrangements between the only two pow- 
 ers who can, with any face, set up a claim to the 
 exercise of sovereignty over the territory to which 
 it attaches. In the consideration of national inter- 
 ests in territorial posses.sions, it is a narrow view to 
 bind down sovereign states to all the rigorous tech- 
 nicalities of private tenures. Great principles of na- 
 tional right, viewed liberally, and ajiplied according 
 to the proclaimed intentions of the parties, are the 
 only guides worthy of statesmen or gcivernments n 
 the settlement of questions of sovereignty over 
 the unoccupied portions of the earth vvc i,; habit. 
 The object of Spain in respect to the northwest coast 
 was settlement — permanent occupation. The ob- 
 ject of Great Britain was commerce, traflic, tran- 
 sient occupation. Tested by the principles I have 
 stated, I cannot hesitate to consider the Spanish title 
 to the northwest coast of America, which has of 
 late been so much disparaged, as vesting rights in 
 us which are unimpeachable. 
 
 I said at the commencement of my remarks tliat 
 one of my objects was to defend the Spanish title, 
 by stating the historical facts on which it rests. I 
 have peiforinpd the task which I allotted to myself. 
 I will only add, that with what 1 have said, I am 
 content, so far as I am concerned, to leave the whole 
 question where it now is, in the hands of the ad- 
 ministration, relying on its firmnes.? and its sense of 
 rectitude to su.stain our just lights, and to respect 
 thejust rights of others. 
 
 So conscious is Great Britain of the invalidity of 
 her title that she does not venture to assert a nghtto 
 the exclu.sive sovereignty of any portion of the terri- 
 tory. In 1S2C she chimed only a right of joint occu- 
 
 ^\t 
 
15 
 
 ■pancy in common with other powers, but denied the 
 right of exclusive dominion in the United States. 
 "While insisting that she was entitled "to place 
 her claims at least upon a parity with those of the 
 United States," she has constantly refused to divide 
 the territory at the 49tli parallel af latitude, the 
 boundary between her ar.d us from the Lake of the 
 Woods to the Rocky mountains — a line which 
 would have severed the coast, and the country in 
 immediate contiguity with it, into two parts so near- 
 ly equal as to leave her no reasonable ground, even on 
 the score of an equitable division, for the continuance 
 of a controversy. Her dcfire for territoiial exten- 
 sion in this quarter is for the purpose of cstaijlish- 
 ing her colonial dominion over districts of country 
 bordering.on us and confining our setllemcnts with- 
 in narrower limits. Our contest for territoj-ial rights, 
 which we consider indisputable, has no object but 
 to enable our citizens to extend themselves lo our 
 natural boundary — the Pacific. Her interest is re- 
 mote and contingent. Ours is direct and certain. 
 Her's is the interest of a state in a distant country 
 which she wishes to colonize. Our's is the interest 
 of a country in its own proper territory and settle- 
 ments. She is not content with subjecting to her 
 sway the fertile and opulent regions of the East; but 
 she comes now^thousands of miles across the ocean 
 to dispute with us the dominion of the uninhabited 
 wilderness, and curtail the area for our expansion. 
 With the least disposition on her part to listen to the 
 suggestions of reason and justice, this question 
 would long ago have been settled on the fair and 
 lionorable terms of compromise — nay, sir, on the 
 terms of concession, which we have more than once 
 proposed. 
 
 I am sure that in the course of our government in 
 relation to Great Britain, in our negot'ations, and in 
 the treaties which have been formed between us, 
 no evidence will be found of a desire on rujr part to 
 encroach on her rights, or to adjust any of tlie ques- 
 tions which liave arisen between us on other term.' 
 than tliose of justice and liberality. The settlement of 
 the northeastern boundary — one of the most delicate 
 and difiicult il-mt has ever arisen between us — affords 
 a striking evidence of our desire to maintain with her 
 the most friendly understanding. We ceded to her 
 a portion of territory which she deemed of vital im- 
 portance as a measis of military communication be- 
 tween the Canadas arid her Atbintic provinces, and 
 which will irive her a great advantage in a contest 
 with us. The measure was .'•ustained by the con- 
 stituted authorities of the country, and I have no 
 desire or intention to call its wisdom in question. 
 But it proves that. we were not unwilling to afford 
 Great Britain any facility she required for consoli- 
 dating her North Ameriain possessions — acting in 
 peace as though war was not to be expected be- 
 tween the two countries. If we had cherished any 
 ambitious designs in respect to tiiem — if we had had 
 any other wish than that of continuing on terms of 
 amity with her and them — this great military ad- 
 vantage would never have been conceded to her. 
 
 On the other hand, 1 regret to say that her 
 course towards us has been a cours..- of perpe- 
 tual encroachment. But, sir, 1 will not look 
 back upon what is past for the purpo.se of re- 
 viving disturbing recollections. Yet 1 am con- 
 strained to s:\y, that in respect to Oregon, I con- 
 sider her legisl:Uion as a virtual infrarlion of the 
 co\iventions(if 181S and 1821. By an act of Parlia- 
 ment ]5assed in 1821, she has extended the juris 
 diction, power, and authority nf her courts of judi- 
 cature in Upper Canada over the whole Indian ter- 
 ritoiy in North America, "not within her own prov- 
 
 inces, or within any civil government of the United 
 States," and of course embracing the territory of 
 Oregon. She has given them cognizance of every 
 wrong and injury to the person ard to proper- 
 ty, real or personal, committed within the territory, 
 and has declared that every person whatsover 
 (not British subjects alone, but every person wliat- 
 soever) residing in it shall be amenable to these 
 courts. Nay, sir, she has authorized the crown to 
 establish courts within the territory itself svith pow- 
 er to try criminal offences not punishable with death, 
 and also civil causes to a limited amount — ! believe 
 =£■200 — about $1,000. She has thus assumed to exer- 
 cise over this territory one of the hishest attributes 
 of national sovereignty — that of deciding upon rights 
 of property and punishing violations of the criminal 
 laws she has extended over them. She could hardly 
 have asserted a more absolute sovereignty than she 
 has done by this extension of her laws and the ju- 
 risdiction of her courts over a territory in which 
 she admits tliat she has no other right but that 
 of a joint occupancy. I am aware that she 
 has disavowed the intention of enforcing hep 
 criminal laws against citizens of the United 
 States. But if senators will turn to the doc- 
 uments accompanying the President's message, they 
 will see that the Hudson's Bay Company has a 
 much more summary method of disposing of Amer- 
 ican citizens, who establish thcinselves on the 
 north side of the Columbia, in the neighborhood of 
 its settlements. Their condition is not bettered, if 
 this exemption from the operation of the British 
 statute is to be exchanged for a forcible process of 
 ejection without law. 
 
 Under these circumstances, what is the duty of 
 the United States.' As I do not intend to intrude 
 m)^se!f on the attention of the Senate again, without 
 absolute necessity, on any question relating to Ore- 
 gon, I desire to say now that I shall vote for the 
 notice to terminate the convention of 1818, continiied 
 in force by that 1827 — a convention which Great 
 Britain treats as recogriizing a right of joiiit 
 occupancy, but which has in reality been for 
 her an exclusive occupancy of the whole terri- 
 tory north of the Columbia. 1 am in favor 
 of extending the authority of our laws and the 
 jurisdiction of our courts over the territory; and 
 in doing so, 1 would, while the convention con- 
 tinues, specially except British subjects, and di- 
 rect tliem, when charged with inl'ractions of our 
 laws, to be delivered up to the nearest British 
 authorities. I v/culd make this reservation for 
 the express purpose of preventing, as far as pos- 
 sible, a conflict of jurisdiction, and to avoid all 
 cause for imputing to us a disregard of treaties, or a 
 desire to produce collision or disagreement of any 
 sort. And in order to focilitate th.e extension of the 
 authority of the Union over our fellow-citizens in 
 that remote district of our country, and to remove, 
 as far as possible, the obstacles to a more free and 
 efficient intercourse between us and them, 1 would 
 establish at once a chain of military posts, with 
 competent garrisons and armaments, from the re- 
 motest navigable waters which flow into the Mis- 
 sissippi, to the eastern face of the Rocky moun- 
 tains, stopping there so long as the convention con- 
 tinues in force. Duty, honor, policy — all demand 
 these measures at our hands; nnd I trust tliey will 
 be executed with promptilude and decision. 
 
 Will these measures produce war." 1 cannot be- 
 lieve that they will. I cannot believe it, because 
 they furnish no just ground of provocation. The 
 right to give the notice is reserved by treaty. The 
 right of extending our laws over Oregon is aright 
 
16 
 
 •which Great Britain has already exercised for a 
 quarter of a century. The establishment of a chain 
 of posts to the Rocky mountains wholly within our 
 own territory, invades no right in others. It has 
 been inferred, from an expression in a public docu- 
 ment, that there is danger of immediate war, and 
 that a sudden blow may be .struck. Sir, I do not 
 believe it. A war waged against us on account of 
 any one or all of the measures referred to, would be 
 a war of plain, unmixed aggresfiion. No nation, in 
 the present age, could embark in such a contest, 
 without drawing down upon herself the condemna- 
 tion of all civihzed communities. She would find 
 herself opposed and restrained by public opin- 
 ion, which, in our day, rules the conduct of nations 
 mors powerfully than the arm of force. 1 hold, 
 therefore, immediate war to be out of the question. 
 Nor can eventual war take place, unless the asser- 
 tion of our just rights shall be forcibly resisted. I 
 do not pretend to pa.^s judgment on what the fu- 
 ture may bring forth. Collisions may grow out 
 of these mea.'^urcs — collisions i-ipening, through in- 
 fluences and events which we may be una- 
 ble to control, into open v/arfire. 1 should deep- 
 ly deplore such a result. The interests of hu- 
 manity, great principles of political right, self- 
 government, freedom, individual rights, all suf- 
 fer when the voice of the law is silenced 
 by the tumult of war. "/ri<er armnsilent leges," is an 
 adage, of the truth of which history has furnished 
 too many fatal proofs. I would do much to avert 
 such a calamity. I would do anything not incon- 
 sistent with the public honor, to avoid a contest 
 which would be disastrous to both parties, no 
 matter what should be its final issue. But be- 
 yond this I can never go. And if exemption from 
 war can only be purchased by a surrender of our 
 just rights, i cannot consent to make the purchase. 
 But if war cannot be averted, I trust we shall not 
 con*mit the great error of undervaluing our adversa- 
 ry. With some opportunity of observing the con- 
 dition of Great Britain near at hand, I have no h-es- 
 itation in saying that she was never capable of 
 greater efforts than she is at the present moment. I 
 know that her inordip.ate distension contains within 
 itself an element of vital weakness. It is not in the 
 order of humai society that so extended a domin- 
 ion should remain long unbroken. But I have not 
 yet been able to delect, in the condition of her body 
 politic, the unerring symptoms of that decay 
 which precedes ami v/orks out the dissolution of 
 empires. She has great abuses to struggle against. 
 The senator i'rom Ohio has v/ell and graphically 
 described them. She has enoroious burdens to sus- 
 
 tain; but she has great strength to bear them. Her sol- 
 diers are not like those of Rome in her latter days, 
 enervated in vigor and relaxed in discipline. You 
 will find them in every quaiter of the g obe, under 
 the fiery heat of the equator, and amid the frosts of 
 the arctic circle, braving the elements, and setting 
 danger and toil, in every form, at defiance. But, 
 sir, I pretend not, with my narrow foresis'it, to look 
 into the future. It is possible that her hour may be 
 near at hand. But we know that the last struggle 
 of the strong man is c.Iways the most desperate, 
 and sometimes the mo>t dangerous to the antago- 
 nist, who has brought him to the ground. 
 
 I say this in no spirit of timidity- I say it in a 
 spirit of prudent forecast — W:th the desire that we 
 may go into the contest, if it shall come, with the 
 assurance that we have to deal with a strong adver- 
 sary and not a weak one; and that our preparation 
 may be commensurate with the means of offence 
 to which we shall be exposed. I have no doubt of 
 our ability both to defend ourselves, and to give 
 back effective blows in return. V/e were never 
 so strong as we are at the present moment — 
 strong in our position, strong in our means, 
 strong in the spirit and energy of our people. Our 
 defenceless condition has been greatly overstated. 
 We have been told that our coast is denuded. 
 I have heard, whether on this floor or else- 
 where I do not know, that there is scarcely a 
 gun mounted for the defence of the commercial me- 
 tropolis o:' my own State. There cannot be a greater 
 error. There are hundreds of guns, of heavy cali- 
 bre, in tlie city of New York, ready, at the very 
 hour in Which I speak, to receive an assailant, 
 and as many more, which can be placed in posi- 
 tion in an emergency — and this independently of 
 guns afloat. In thuty days I believe the city 
 migiit be rendered, with a skilful engineer, and 
 with the means v/hich might be placed at his com- 
 mand, prepared — well prepared — against a maritime 
 assault. But, sir, I turn away from all these fore- 
 bodings of evil. I have confidence in the continu- 
 ance of peace. The good sente of both countries 
 v/ill revolt at a contest which can bring no good 
 to either, and secure an adjustment of existing dif- 
 ficulties on terms honorable to boQi. Such is my 
 conviction. But, sir, if I am deceived, then I 
 have only to say, that while I would be constrained 
 by nothing but overruling necessity to take up the 
 sword, yet if the necessity shall come, I trust we 
 shall never consent to lay it dov/n until the rights 
 and the honor of the country have been fully vindi- 
 cated. 
 
 When Mr. Dix- resumed his seat. 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 017 185 189 
 
L 
 
\ 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 017 185 189 
 
 ^