29th Gongress, 
 Isi Session. 
 
 [SENATE.] 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 MESSAGE 
 
 THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS, 
 
 THE COMMENCEMENT OP THE FIRST SESSION 
 
 THE TWENTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 
 
 December 2, 1845. 
 
 Scad, ordered.lo lie on the (able, and lobe printed, with the accompanying docuraentsj and 
 that 3,500 additionai copies of the message, and 1,500 additional copies of the message and 
 documents, be furnished for the use of the Senate. 
 
 December 3 , 1845 . 
 

[ 1 ] 
 
 MESSAGE. 
 
 Fellow-citizens of the Senate and Hovse of Representatives: 
 
 It is to me a source of unaffected satisfaction to meet the Representa¬ 
 tives of the Stales and the people in Congress assembled, ns it will be to 
 receive the aid of their combined wisdom in the administration of public 
 affairs. In performing, for the first time, the duly imposed on me by the 
 constitution, of giving to you information of the state of the Union, and 
 recommending to your consideration such measures as in my judgment 
 are necessary and expedient, I am happy tliat I can congratulate you on 
 the continued prosperity of our country. Under the blessings of Divine 
 Providence and the benign influence of our free institutions, it stands be¬ 
 fore the world a spectacle of national happiness. 
 
 With our unexampled advancement in all the elements of natienal 
 greatness, the affection of the people is confirmed for the union of the 
 States, and for the doctrines of popular liberty, which lie at the founda¬ 
 tion of our government. 
 
 It becomes us, in humility, to make our devout acknowledgments to 
 the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, for the inestimable civil and religious 
 blessings with which we are favored. 
 
 In calling the attention of Congress to our relations with foreign Pow¬ 
 ers, 1 am gratified to be able to state, that, though with some of them 
 there have existed since your last session serious causes of irritation and 
 misunderstandins, yet no actual hostilities have taken place. Adopting 
 the maxim in the conduct of our foreign affairs, to “ ask nothing that is 
 not right, and submit to nothing that is wrong,” it has been my anxious 
 desire to preserve peace with all nations; but, at the same time, to be pre¬ 
 pared to resist aggression and maintain all our just rights. 
 
 In pursuance of the joint resolution of Congress, “ for annexing Texas 
 to the United States,” ray predecessor, on the third day of March, 1S46, 
 elected to submit the first and second sections of that resolution to the 
 republic of Texas, as an overture, on the part of the United States, for her 
 admission as a State into our Union. This election I approved, and ac¬ 
 cordingly the charge d’affaires of the United States in Texas, under in¬ 
 structions of the tenth of March, 1845, presented these sections of the 
 resolution for the acceptance of that republic. The executive govern¬ 
 ment, the Congress, and the people of Texas in convention, have suc¬ 
 cessively complied with all the terras and conditions of the joint resolu¬ 
 tion. A constitution for the government of the State of Texas, formed 
 by a convention of deputies, is herewith laid before Congress. It is well 
 known, also, that the people of Texas at the polls have accepted the fOTUS 
 of annexation, and ratified the constitution. 
 
 I communicate to Congress the correspondence between the Secretary 
 of State and our charge d’affaires in Texas; and also the correspondence 
 
4 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 of the latter with the authorities of Texas; together with the official doc¬ 
 uments traiisiniitcd by him to his own government. 
 
 The terms of anne.xation which were offered by the United States hav¬ 
 ing been accepted by 'i'exas, ilio public faith of both parties is solemnly 
 pledged to the compact of their union. Notliing remains to consummate 
 the event, but the passage of an act by Congress to admit the State of Tex¬ 
 as into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States. Strong 
 reasons exist why this should be done at an early period of the session. 
 It will be observed that, by the constituiion of Te.xas, the e.xisting gov¬ 
 ernment is oidy continued temporarily .till Congress can act; and that 
 the third Monday of the present month is the day appointed for holding 
 the first general election. On that day a governor, a lieutenant-governor, 
 and both branches of the legislature, will be chosen by the people. The 
 President of Texas is required, immediately after the receipt of official in¬ 
 formation that the new State has been admitted into our Union by Con¬ 
 gress, to convene the legislature; and, upon its meeting, the existing gov¬ 
 ernment will be superseded, and the State government organized. (Ques¬ 
 tions dee|)ly interesting to I'exas, in common with the other States; the 
 extension of our revenue laws and judicial system over her people and 
 territory, as well as measures of a local character, will claim the early at¬ 
 tention of Congress; and, therefore, upon every principle of republican 
 government, she ought to be represented in that body without unneces¬ 
 sary delay. I cannot too earnestly recommend prompt action on this im¬ 
 portant subject. 
 
 As soon as the act to admit Texas as a State shall be passed, the union 
 of the two republics will be consummated by their own voluntary con- 
 
 This accession to our territory has been a bloodless achievement. No 
 arm of force has been raised to produce the result. The sword has had 
 no part in the victory. VVe have not sought to extend our territorial pos¬ 
 sessions by conquest, nr our republican institutions over a reluctant peo¬ 
 ple. It was the deliberate homage of each people to the great principle ef 
 our federative union. 
 
 If we consider the extent of territory involved in the annexation—its 
 prospective influence on America—the means by which it has been ac¬ 
 complished, springing purely from the choice of the people themselves to 
 share the blessings of our union,—the history of the world may be chal¬ 
 lenged to furnish a parallel. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the United Slates, which at the formation of tho 
 federal constitution was bounded by the St. Mary’s on the Atlantic, has 
 passed the Capes of Florida, and bi^en peacefully extended to the Del 
 Norte. In contemplating the grandeur of this event, it is not to be for¬ 
 gotten that the result was achieved in despite of the diplomatic inter¬ 
 ference of European monarchies. Even France—the country which had 
 been our ancient ally—the country which has a common interest with us 
 in inamiaiuins: the freedom of the seas—the country which, by the ces¬ 
 sion of Louisiana, first opened to us access to the Gulf of Mexico—the 
 country with which we have been every year drawing more and more 
 closely tho bonds of succes.sful commerce—most une,xpectedly, and to 
 our unfeigned regret, took part in an effort to prevent annexation, and to 
 impose on Texas, as a condition of the recognition of her independence 
 by Mexico, that she vrould never join herself to the United States. We 
 
5 
 
 Cl] 
 
 may rejoice that th.e tranquil and pervading influence of the American 
 principle of selfgoveniment was sufficient to defeat the purposes of 
 British and Prenclt interference, and lliat the almost unanimous voice of 
 the people of Texas has given to that interf rence a peaceful and effective 
 rebuke. From this example, European governments may learn how vain 
 diplomatic arts and intrigues must ever prove upon this continent, agaitist 
 that system of self-government which seems natural to our soil, and 
 which will ever resist foreign interference. 
 
 Towards Texas, 1 do not doubt that a liberal and generous spirit will 
 actuate Congress in all that concerns her interests and prosperity, and 
 that she will never have cause to regret that she has united her “lone 
 star” to our glorious constellation. 
 
 I regret to inform you that our relations with Mexico, since your last 
 session, have not been of the amicable character which it is our desire to 
 cultivate with all foreign nations. On the sixth day of March last, the 
 Mexican Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United 
 States made a formal protest, in the name of his government, against the 
 joint resolution passed by Congress, “ for the annexation of Texas to the 
 United Slates,” which he chose to regard as a violation of the rights of 
 Mexico, and, in consequence of it, he demanded his passports. He was 
 informed tlial the goverimront of the United States did not consider this 
 joint resolution as a violation of any of the rights of Me.xico, or that it 
 afforded any just cause of offence to his government; that the republic 
 of Texas was an indeirendeut Power, owing no allegiance to Mexico, and 
 constituting no pan of her territory or rightful sovereignty and jurisdiction. 
 He was also assured that it was the sincere desire of this government to 
 maintain with that of Mexico relations of peace and good understanding. 
 That functionary, however, notwithstanding these representations and 
 assurances, abruptly terminated his mission, and shortly afterwards left 
 the country. Our Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to 
 Mexico wms refused all official intercourse with tliat goverunient, and, 
 after remaining several mouths, by the pcrmis.sion of his own govern¬ 
 ment he rctunicd to the United States. Thus, by the acts of Mexico, 
 all diplomatic intercourse between the two couiilries was suspended. 
 
 Since that lime Me.xico has, until recently, occupied an attitude of hos¬ 
 tility towards the United States—has been niarslialliiig and organizing 
 armies, issuing proclamations, and avowing the intention to make war on 
 the United States, either by an open declaration, or by invading Texas. 
 Both the Congress and convention of tlie people of Texas invited this 
 government to send an army into that territory, to protect and defend tltem 
 against tin; menaced attack. The moment the terms of annexation 
 offered by the United States were accepted by Texas, the latter became 
 so far a part of our own country, as to make it our duty to afford such 
 protection and delonco. I therefore deemed it proper, as a precautionary 
 measure, to order a strong squadron to the coa.sts of Mexico, and to con¬ 
 centrate an cfRcieiit military force on the western frontier of Texas. Our 
 army was ordered to take position in the country between the Nueces and 
 the Del Norte, and to repel any invasion of the Texan territory which 
 might be attempted by the Mexican forces. Our squadron in the gulf 
 was ordered to co-operate with the army. But though our array and navy 
 were placed in a position to defend our own and the rights of Texas, they 
 were ordered to commit no act of hostility against Mexico, unless she de- 
 
[ 1 ] 6 
 
 dared war, or was herselt the aggressor by striking the first blow. The 
 result has been, that Mexico has made no aggressive movement, and our 
 military and naval commanders have executed their orders with such dis¬ 
 cretion, that the peace of the two republics has not been disturbed. 
 
 Texas had declared her independence, and maintained it by her arms 
 for more than nine years. She has had an organized government in 
 successful operation during that period. Her separate existence, as an 
 independent State, had been recognised by the United States and the 
 principal Powers of Europe. Treaties of commerce and navigation had 
 been concluded with her by different nations, and it had become mani¬ 
 fest to the whole world that any further attempt on the part of Mexico to 
 conquer her, or overthrow her government, would be vain. Even Mexico 
 herself had become satisfied of this fact; and whilst the question of 
 annexation was pending before the people of Texas, during the past 
 summer, the government of Mexico, by a formal act, agreed to recognise 
 the independence of Te.xas on condition that she would not annex her¬ 
 self to any other Power. The agreement to acknowledge the independ¬ 
 ence of Texas, whether with or without this condition, is conclusive 
 against Mexico. The independence of Texas is a fact conceded by 
 Mexico herself, and she had no right or authority to prescribe restrictions 
 as to the form of government which Texas might afterwards choose to 
 assume. 
 
 But though Mexico cannot complain of the United States on account of 
 the annexation of Texas, it is to be regretted that serious causes of mis- 
 understanditig between the two countries continue to exist, growing out 
 of unredressed injuries inflicted by the Mexican authorities and people 
 on the persons and property of citizens of the United States, through a 
 long series of years. Mexico has admitted these injuries, but has neg¬ 
 lected and refused to repair them. Such was the character of the wrongs, 
 and such the insults repeatedly offered to American citizens and the 
 American flag by Mexico, in palpable violation of the laws of nations and 
 the treaty between the two countries of the fifth of April, 1831, that they 
 have been repeatedly brought to the notice of Congress by my predeces¬ 
 sors. As early as the eighth of February, 1837, the President of the 
 United States declared, in a message to Congress, that “ the length of 
 time since some of the injuries have been committed, the repeated and 
 unavailing applications for redress, the wanton character of some of the 
 outrages upon the persons and property of our citizens, upon the officers 
 and flag of the United States, indcpetident of recent insults to this gov¬ 
 ernment and people by the late Extraordinary Mexican minister, would 
 justify in the eyes of all nations immediate war.” He did not, however, 
 recommend an immediate resort to this extreme measure, which, he 
 declared, “should not be used by just and generous nations, confiding 
 in their strength for injuries committed, if it cata be honorably avoided 
 but, in a spirit of forbearance, proposed that another demand be made on 
 Mexico for that redress which had been .so long and unjustly withheld, 
 in these views, committees of the two houses of Congress, in reports 
 made to their respective bodies, concurred. Since these proceedings 
 more than eight years have elapsed, during which, in addition to the 
 wrongs then complained of, others of an aggravated character have been 
 committed on the persons and property of our citizens. A special agent 
 was sent to Mexico in the summer of 1838, with full authority to make 
 
7 
 
 [1] 
 
 another and final demand for redress. The demand was made; the 
 Mexican government promised to repair the wrongs of which we com¬ 
 plained ; and after much delay, a treaty of indemnity with that view was 
 concluded between the two Powers on the eleventh of April, 1839, and 
 was duly ratified by both governments. By this treaty a joint eommis- 
 sion was created to adjudicate and decide on the claims of American cit¬ 
 izens on the government of Mexieo. The commission was organized at 
 Washington on the twenty-fifth day of August, 1841). Their time was 
 limited to eighteen months; at the expiration of which, they had adjudi¬ 
 cated and decided claims amounting to two millions twenty-six thousand 
 one hundred and thirty-nine dollars and sixty-eight cents in favor of citi¬ 
 zens of the United States against the Mexican government, leaving a 
 large amount of claims undecided. Of the latter, the American commis¬ 
 sioners had decided in favor of our citizens claims amounting to nine 
 hundred and twenty-eight thousand six hundred and twenty-seven dol¬ 
 lars and eighty-eight cents, which were left unacted on by the umpire 
 authorized by the treaty. Still further claims, amounting to between 
 three and four millions of dollars, were submitted to the board too late to 
 be considered; and were left undisposed of. The sum of two millions 
 twenty-six thousand one hundred and thirty-nine dollars and sixty-eight 
 cents, decided by the board, was a liquidated and ascertained debt due 
 by Mexico to the claimants, and there was no justifiable reason for de¬ 
 laying its payment according to the terms of the treaty. It was not, 
 however, paid. Mexico applied for further indulgence; and, in that spirit 
 of liberality and forbearance which has ever marked the policy of the 
 United States towards that republic, the request was granted; and, on 
 the thirtieth of January, 1843, a new treaty was concluded. By this 
 treaty it was provided, that the interest due on the awards in favor of 
 claimants under the convention of the eleventh of April, 1839, should 
 be paid on the thirtieth of April, 1843; and that “the principal of the 
 said awards, and the interest arising thereon, shall be paid in five years, 
 in equal instalments every three months; the said term of five years 
 to commence on the thirtieth day of April, 1843, as aforesaid.” The interest 
 due on the thirtieth day of April, 1843, and the three first of the twenty 
 instalments, have been paid. Seventeen of these instalments remain un¬ 
 paid, seven of which are no.w due. 
 
 The claims which were left undecided by the joint commission, 
 amounting to more than throe millions of dollars, together with other 
 claims for spoliations on the property of our citizens, were subsequently 
 presented to the Mexican government for payment, and were so far recog¬ 
 nised that a treaty, providing for their examination and settlement by a 
 joint commission, was concluded and signed at Mexico on the twentieth 
 day of November, 1843. This treaty was ratified by the United States, 
 with certain amendments, to which no just exception could have been 
 taken; but it has not yet received the ratification of the Mexican govern¬ 
 ment. In the mean time, our citizens who suffered great losses, and some 
 of whom have been reduced from affluence to bankruptcy, are without 
 remedy, unless their rights be enforced by their government. Such a 
 continued and unprovoked series of wrongs could never have been tol¬ 
 erated by the United States, had they been committed by one of the 
 principal nations of Europe. Mexico was, however, a neighboring sister 
 republic, which, following our example, had achieved her independence, 
 
£ 1 ] 8 
 
 and for whose success and prosperity all our sympathies were early en¬ 
 listed. The United States were the lirst to recognise her independence, 
 and to receive her into the family of nations, and have ever been desi¬ 
 rous of cultivating with her a good understanding. We have, therefore, 
 borne the repeated wrongs she has committed, with great patience, in the 
 hope that a returning sense of justice would ultimately guide her coun¬ 
 cils, and that we might, if possible, honorably avoid any hostile collision 
 with her. 
 
 Without the previous authority of Congress, the Executive possessed 
 no power to adopt or enforce adequate remedies for the injuries we had. 
 suffered, or to do more than to be prepared to repel the threatened aggres¬ 
 sion on the part of Mexico. After our army and navy had remained on 
 the frontier and coasts of Mexico for many weeks, without any hostile 
 movement on her part, though her menaces were continued, I deemed 
 it important to put an end, if possible, to this state of things. With this 
 view, I caused steps to be taken, in the month of September last, to ascer¬ 
 tain distinctly, and in an authentic form, what the designs of the Mexi¬ 
 can government were; whether it was their intention to declare war, or 
 invade Texas, or whether they were disposed to adjust and settle, in an 
 amicable manner, the pending difl'erencos between the two countries. 
 On the ninth of November an oflicial answer was received, that the Mex¬ 
 ican government consented to renew the diplomatic relations which had 
 been suspended in March last; and for that purpose were willing to ac¬ 
 credit a minister from the United States. With a sincere desire to pre¬ 
 serve peace, and restore relation's of good understanding between the two 
 republics, 1 waived all ceremony as to the manner of renewing diplomat¬ 
 ic intercourse between them; and, assuming the initiative, on the tenth 
 of November a distinguished citizen of Louisiana was appointed Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Mexico, clothed with full 
 powers to adjust, and definitively settle, all pending differences between 
 the two countries, including those of boundary between Mexico and the 
 State of Texas. The minister appointed lias set out on his mission, and' 
 is probably by this time near the Mexican capital. He has been in¬ 
 structed to bring the negotiation with which he is charged to a conclu¬ 
 sion at the earliest practicable period ; which, it is expected, will be in- 
 time to enable me to communicate the result to Congress during the pre¬ 
 sent session. Until that result is known, I forbear to rcccommend to 
 Congress such ulterior measures of redress for the wrongs and injuries 
 we have so long borne, ns it w'ould have been proper to make had no 
 such negotiation been instituted. 
 
 Congress appropriated, at the last session, the sum of two liundred and 
 seventy-five thousand dollars for the payment of the April and July in¬ 
 stalments of the Mexican indemnities for the year 1844; “ Provided it 
 shall be ascertained to the satisfaction of the American government that 
 said instalments have been paid by the Mexican government to the agent 
 appointed by tlie United Stales to receive the same, in such manner as 
 to discharge all claim on the Mexican government, and said agent to be 
 delinquent in remitting the money to the United States.” 
 
 The unsettled state of our relations witli Mexico has involved this sub¬ 
 ject in much mystery. The first information, in an authentic form, from 
 the agent of the United States appointed under the administration of my 
 predecessor, was received at the State Department on the ninth of No- 
 
9 [ 1 ] 
 
 ■vember last This is contained in a letter, dated the seventeenth of Oc¬ 
 tober, addressed by him to one of our citizens then in Mexico, with a 
 view of having it cominunicatod to that department. From this it ap¬ 
 pears that the agent, on the twentieth of September, 1S44, gave a receipt 
 to the treasury of Mexico for the amount of the April and July instal¬ 
 ments of the indemnity. In the same communication, however, he as¬ 
 serts that he had not received a single dollar in cash; but that he holds 
 such securities as warranted him at the time in giving the receipt, and 
 entertains no doubt but that he will eventually obtain the money. As 
 these instalments appear never to have been actually paid by the govern¬ 
 ment of Mexico to the agent, and as that government has not therefore 
 been released so as to discharge the claim, I.do not feel myself warranted 
 in directing payment to be made to the claimants out of the treasury,, 
 without further legislation. Their case is, undoubtedly, one of much 
 hardship; and it remains for Congress to decide whether any, and what, 
 relief ought to be granted to them. Our minister to Mexico has been in¬ 
 structed to ascertain the facts of the case from the Mexican government, 
 in an authentic and official form, and report the result with as little delay 
 as possible. 
 
 My attention was early directed to the negotiation, which, on the fourth 
 of March last, I found pending at Washington between the United States 
 and Great Britain, on the subject of the Oregon territory. Three seve¬ 
 ral attempts had been previously made to settle the questions in dispute 
 iietween the two countries, by negotiation, upon the principle of compro¬ 
 mise ; but each had proved unsuccessful. 
 
 These negotiations took place at London, in the years 181S, 1824, and 
 1826; the two first under the administration of Mr. Monroe, and the last 
 under that of Mr. Adams. The negotiation of 1818 having failed to ac¬ 
 complish its object, resulted in the convention of the twentieth of Octo¬ 
 ber of that year. By the third article of that convention, it was “ agreed, 
 that any country that may be claimed by either patty on the northwest 
 coast of America, westward of the Stony mouiuaiiis, shall, together with 
 its harbors, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the 
 same, be free and open lor the term of ten years from the date of the sig¬ 
 nature of tlie present coiiveirlion, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of 
 the two Powers; it being well understood that this agreement is not to 
 be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high 
 contractinir parties may have to any part of tlie said country, nor shall it 
 he taken to affect the claims of any other Power or State to any part of the 
 said country the only object of tlie high contracting parties in that re¬ 
 spect being to prevent di.sputes and dift'ereiices among themselves.” 
 
 The negotiation of 1824 was productive of no result, and the conven¬ 
 tion of ISIS was left unchanged. 
 
 The negotiation of 1826, having also failed to ofl’cet an adjustment by 
 compromise, resulted in the convention of August the sixth, 182T, by 
 whicli it was agreed to continue in force, for an indefinite period, the pro¬ 
 visions of the third article of the convention of the twentieth of October, 
 1818; and it was further provided, that “ it shall be competent, however, 
 to either of the contracting parties, in case either should think fit, at any 
 time after the twentieth of October, 1828, on giving due notice of twelve 
 months to the other contracting party, to annul and abrogate this conven¬ 
 tion ; and it shall, in such case, he accordingly entirely annulled and ab- 
 
10 
 
 [1] 
 
 rogated after the expiration of the said term of notice.” In these at¬ 
 tempts to adjust the controversy, the parallel of the forty-ninth degree of 
 north latitude had been offered by the United States to Great Britain, and 
 in those of 1818 and 1826, with a further concession of the free naviga¬ 
 tion of the Columbia river south of that latitude. The parallel of the 
 forty-ninth degree, from the Rocky mountains to its intersection with the 
 northeasternmost branch of the Columbia, and thence down the channel 
 of that river to the sea, had been offered by Great Britain, with an addi¬ 
 tion of a small detached territory north of the Columbia. Each of these 
 propositions had been rejected by the parties respectively. 
 
 In October, 1843, the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten¬ 
 tiary of the United States in- London was authorized to make a similar 
 offer to those made in 1818 and 1826. Thus stood the question, when 
 the negotiation was shortly afterwards transferred to Washington; and, 
 on the twenty-third of August, 1844, was formally opened, under the di¬ 
 rection of my immediate predecessor. Like all the previous negotiations, 
 it was based upon principles of “ compromiseand the avowed purpose 
 of the parties was, “ to treat of the respective claims of the two countries 
 to the Oregon territory, with the view to establish a permanent boundary 
 between them westward of the Rocky mountains to the Pacif.c ocean.” 
 Accordingly, on the twenty-sixth of August, 1844, the British plenipo¬ 
 tentiary offered to divide the Oregon territory by the forty-ninth parallel 
 of north latitude, from the Rocky mountains to the point of its intersec¬ 
 tion with the northeasternmost branch of the Columbia river, and thence 
 down that river to the sea; leaving the free navigation of the river to be 
 enjoyed in common by both parties—the country south of this line to be¬ 
 long to the United States, and that north of it to Great Britain. At the 
 same time, he proposed, in addition, to yield to the United States a de¬ 
 tached territory, north of the Columbia, extending along the Pacific and 
 the Straits of Fuca, from Bulfinoh’s harbor inclusive, to Hood’s canal, 
 and to make free to the United States any port or ports south of latitude 
 forty-nine degrees, which they might desire, cither on the main land, or 
 on Quadra and Vancouver’s island. With the exception of the free ports, 
 this was the same offer which had been made by the British, and rejected 
 by the American government, in the negotiation of 1826. 3'his proposi¬ 
 tion was properly rejected by the American plenipotentiary on the day it 
 was submitted. This was the only proposition of compron ise offered by 
 the British plenipotentiary. The proposition on the part of Great Britain 
 having been rejected, the British plenipotentiary requested that a proposal 
 should be made by the United States for “ an equitable adjustment of the 
 question.” 
 
 When 1 came into office, I found this to be the state of the negotiation. 
 Though entertaining the settled conviction, that the British pretensions 
 of title could not be maintained to any portion of the Oregon territory 
 upon any principle of public law recognised by nations, yet, in deference 
 to what had been done by my predecessors, and especially in considera¬ 
 tion that propositions of compromise had been thrice made, by two pre¬ 
 ceding administrations, to adjust the question on the parallel of forty-nine 
 degrees, and in two of them yielding to Great Britain the free navigation 
 of the Columbia, and that the pending negotiation had been commenced 
 on the basis of compromise, I deeemed it to be my duty not abruptly to 
 break it off. In consideration, too, that under the conventions of 1818 
 
11 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 and 183 , 7 , the citizens and subjects of the two Powers held a joint occu¬ 
 pancy of the country, I was induced to make another effort to settle this 
 long-pending controversy in the spirit of moderation which had given 
 birth to the renewed discussion. A proposition was accordingly made, 
 which was rejected by the British plenipotentiary, who, without sub¬ 
 mitting any otlier proposition,suffered the negotiation on iiis part to drop, 
 expressing liis trust that the United States would offer what he saw fit to 
 call “ some further proposal for the settlement of the Oregon question, 
 more consistent with fairness and equity, and with the reasonable expec¬ 
 tations of the British government.” The proposition thus offered and re¬ 
 jected repeated the offer of the parallel of forty-nine degrees of north lat¬ 
 itude, winch had been made by two preceding administrations, but with¬ 
 out proposing to surrender to Great Britain, as they had done, the free 
 navigation of the Columbia river. The right of any foreign Power to the 
 free navigation of any of our rivers, through the heart of our country, 
 was one whicii I was unwilling to concede. It also embraced a provision 
 to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on the cap of Quadra and 
 Vancouver’s island, south of this parallel. Had this been a new question, 
 coming under discussion for the first time, this proposition would not 
 have been made. The extraordinary and wholly inadmissible demands 
 of the British government, and the rejection of the proposuion made in 
 deference alone to what had been done by my predecessors, and the im¬ 
 plied obligation wiiich their acts seemed to impose, afford satisfactory evi¬ 
 dence that no compromise which the United States ought to accept can 
 be effected. Witli this conviction, the proposition of compromise which 
 had been made and rejected, was, by my direction, subsequently with¬ 
 drawn, and our title to tiie whole Oregon territory asserted, and, as is be¬ 
 lieved, maintained by irrefragable facts and arguments. 
 
 The civilized world will see in these proceedings a spirit of liberal con¬ 
 cession on the part of the United States; and this government will be 
 relieved from all responsibility which may follow the failure to settle the 
 controversy. 
 
 All attempts at compromise having failed, it becomes the duty of Con¬ 
 gress to consider what measures it may be proper to adopt for the security 
 and protection of our citizens now inhabiting, or who may hereafter in¬ 
 habit Oregon, and for tlie maintenance of our just title to that territory. 
 In adopting measures for this purpose, care should be taken that nothing 
 be done to violate the stipulations of the convention of 1S27, which is 
 -Still ill force. The faith of treaties, in their letter and spirit, has ever been, 
 and, I trust, will ever be, scrupulously observed by the United States. 
 Under that convention, a year’s notice is required to be given by either 
 party to the other, before tlie joint occupancy shall terminate, and before 
 either can rightfully assert or exorcise exclusive jurisdiction over any 
 portion of the territory. This notice it would, in my judgment, be proper 
 to give; and 1 recommend that provision be made by law for giving it 
 accordingly, and terminating in this manner the convention of the sixth 
 of August, 1827. 
 
 It will become proper for Congress to determine what legislation they 
 can, in the mean time, adopt without violating this convention. Beyond 
 all question, the protection of our laws and our jurisdiction, civil and 
 criminal, ought to be immediately extended over our citizens in Oregon. 
 'I'hey have had just cause to complain of our long neglect in this par- 
 
12 
 
 [1] 
 
 ticular, and have, in consequence, been compelled, for their own security 
 and protection, to establish a provisional government for themselves. 
 Strong in their allegiance and ardent in their attachment to the United 
 States, they have been thus cast upon their own resources. They are 
 anxious that our law.s should bo extended over them, and 1 recommend 
 that this be done by Congress with as little delay as possible, in the full 
 extent to which the British Parliament have proceeded in regard to Brit¬ 
 ish subjects in that territory, by their act of .luly the second, ISSl, “ for 
 regulating the fur-trade, and establishing a criminal and civil jurisdiction 
 within certain parts of North America.” By this act Great Britain ex¬ 
 tended her laws and jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over her subjects 
 engaged in the fur-trade in that territory. By it, the courts of the pro¬ 
 vince of Upper Canada were empowered to take cognizance of cause.s 
 civil and criminal. Justices of the peace and other judicial olTicers were 
 authorized to be appointed in Oregon, with ])ower to execute all process 
 issuing from the courts of that province, and to “ sit and hold courts of 
 record for the trial of criminal offences and misdemeanors,” not made the 
 subject of capital punisliment, and also of civil cases, where the cause of 
 action shall not “ exceed in value the amount or sura of two hundred 
 pounds.” 
 
 Subsequent to the date of this act of Parliament, a grant was made from 
 the “British crown” to the Hudson’s Bay Company, of the exclusive 
 trade with the Indian tribes in the Oregon territory, subject to a reserva¬ 
 tion that it shall not operate to the exclusion “ of the subjects of any 
 foreign States who, under or by force of any convention for the time beings 
 between us and such foreign States respectively, may be entitled to, and 
 shall be engaged in, the said trade.” 
 
 It is much to be regretted, that while under this act British subjects 
 have enjoyed the protection of British-laws and British judicial tribunal.^ 
 throughout the wiiole of Oregon, American citizens in the same territory- 
 have enjoyed no such protection from their government. At the same 
 time, the result illustrates the character of our people and their institu¬ 
 tions. In spite of this neglect, they have multiplied, and their number 
 is rapidly increasing in that territory. They have made no appeal to 
 •arms, but have peacefully fortified themselves in their new homes, by the 
 adoption of republican institutions for themselves; furnishing another ex¬ 
 ample of the truth that self-government is inherent in the American breast, 
 and must prevail. It is due to them that they should be embraced and. 
 protected by our laws. 
 
 It is deemed important that our laws regulating trade and iutercourso. 
 with the Indian tribes east of the Rocky mountains, should be e.xtended 
 to such tribes as dwell beyond them. 
 
 The increasing emigration to Oregon, and the care and protection which 
 is due from the government to its citizens in that distant region, make it 
 our duty, as it is our interest, to cultivate amicable relations with the Indian 
 tribes of that territory. For this jmrposo, I recommend that provision be 
 made for establishing an Indian agency, and such sub-agencies as may 
 be deemed necessary, beyond the Rocky mountains. 
 
 For the protection of emigrants, whilst on their way to Oregon, against 
 the attacks of the Indian tribes occupying the country through which 
 they pass, I recommend that a suitable number of stockades and block¬ 
 house forts be erected along the usual route between our ffontier settle- 
 
13 
 
 [1] 
 
 menfs on (he Missouri and the Rocky mounfains; and that an adequate 
 force of mounted riflemen be raised to guard and protect tliem on their 
 journey. The immediate adoption of these recommendations by Con¬ 
 gress will not violate the provisions of the existing treaty. It will be 
 doing nothing more for American citizens than British laws have long 
 since done for British subjects in the same territory. 
 
 It requires several months to perform the voyage by sea from the Atlan¬ 
 tic States to Oregon; and although we have a large number of whale 
 ships in the Pacific, but few of them aflbtd an opportunity of interchang¬ 
 ing intelligence, without great delay, between our settlements in that dis¬ 
 tant, region and the United States. An overland mail is believed to be 
 entirely practicable, and the importance of establishing such a mail, at 
 least once a month, is submitted to the favorable consideration of Con¬ 
 gress. 
 
 It is submitted to tho wisdom of Congress to determine whether, at their 
 present session, and until after the expiration of the year’s notice, any 
 otiier measures may be adopted consistently with the convention of I82T, 
 for the security of our rights and the government and protection of our 
 citizens in Cregon. That it will ultimately be wise and proper to make 
 liberal grants of land to the patriotic pioneers, who, amidst privations and 
 dangers, lead the way through savage tribes inhabiting the vast wilder¬ 
 ness intervening between our frontier settlements and Cregon, and who 
 cultivate and are ever ready to defend the soil, 1 am fully satisfied. To 
 doubt whether they will obtain such grants as soon as the convention be¬ 
 tween the United States and Great Britain shall have ceased to exist, 
 would be to doubt the justice of Congress; but, pending the year’s no¬ 
 tice, it is worthy of consideration whetlier a stipulation to this effect may 
 be n9ade consistently with the spirit of that convention. 
 
 The recommendations which I have made, as to the best manner of 
 securing our rights in Cregon, are submitted to Congress with great def¬ 
 erence. Should they, in their wisdom, devise any other mode better 
 calculated to accomplish the same object, it shall meet with my hearty con¬ 
 currence. 
 
 At the end of the year’s notice, should Congress think it proper to 
 make provision for giving that notice, we shall have reached a period 
 when the national rights in Cregon must either be abandoned or firmly 
 maintained. That they cannot be abandoned without a sacrifice of both 
 national honor and interest, is too clear to admit of doubt. 
 
 Oregon is a part of the North American continent, to which, it is confi¬ 
 dently affirmed, the title of the United States is the best now in existence. 
 For the grounds on which that title rests, 1 refer you to the correspond¬ 
 ence of the late and present Secretary of Slate with the British plenipo- 
 tentiay during the negotiation. The British proposition of compromise, 
 which would make the Columbia the line south of forty-nine degree.^, 
 with a trifling addition of detached territory to tile United States, north 
 of that river, and would leave on the British side two-thirds of the whole 
 Cregon territory, including the flee navigation of the Columbia and ail 
 the valuable harbors on tlie Pacific, can never, for a moment, be enter¬ 
 tained by the United States, without an abandonment of their just and 
 clear territorial rights, their own self respect, and the national honor. 
 For the information of Congress, I communicate herewith the corres¬ 
 pondence which took place between the two governments during the 
 late negotiation. 
 
14 
 
 [1] 
 
 The rapid extension of our settlements over our territories heretofore 
 unoccupied; the addition of new States to our confederacy; the expan- 
 sion of free principles, and our rising greatness as a nation, are attracting 
 the attention of the Powers of Europe; and lately the doctrine has been 
 broached in some of them, of a “balance of power” on this continent to 
 check our advancement. The United States, sincerely desirous of pre¬ 
 serving relations of good understanding with all nations, cannot in 
 silence permit any European interference on the North American conti¬ 
 nent; and should any such interference be attempted, will be ready to 
 resist it at any and all hazards. 
 
 It is well known to the American people and to all nations, that this 
 government has never interfered with the relations subsisting between 
 other governments. We have never made ourselves parties to their wars 
 or their alliances; we have not sought their territories by conquest; we 
 have not mingled with parties in their domestic struggles; and, believing 
 our own form of government to be the best, we have never attempted to 
 propagate it by intrigues, by diplomacy, or by force. We may claim on 
 this continent a like exemption from European interference. The nations 
 of America are equally sovereign and independent with those of Europe. 
 They possess the same rights, independent of all foreign interposition, to 
 make war, to conclude peace, and to regulate their internal affairs. The 
 people of the United States cannot, therefore, view with indifference at¬ 
 tempts of European Powers to interfere with the independent action of 
 the nations on this continent. The American system of government is 
 entirely different from that of Europe. Jealousy among the different 
 sovereigns of Europe, lest any one of them might become too powerful 
 for the rest, has caused them anxiously to desire the establishment of 
 what they term the “balance of power.” It cannot be permitted to have 
 any application on the North American continent, and especially to the 
 United States. We must ever maintain the principle, that the people of 
 this continent alone have the right to decide their own destiny. Should 
 any portion of them, consiituting an independent state, propose to unite 
 themselves with our confederacy, this will be a question for them and us 
 to determine, without any foreign interposition. We can never consent 
 that European Powers shall interfere to prevent such a union, because it 
 might disturb the “balance of power” which they may desire to main¬ 
 tain upon this continent. Near a quarter of a century ago, the principle 
 was distinctly announced to the world, in the annual message of one of 
 my predecessors, that “the American continents, by the free and inde¬ 
 pendent conditimi which tliey have assumed and maintain, are hence¬ 
 forth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any Eu¬ 
 ropean Power.” This principle will apply with greatly increased force, 
 should any European Power attempt to establish any new colony in North 
 America. In the existing circumstances of the world, the present is 
 deemed a proper occasion to reiterate and reaffirm the principle avowed 
 by Mr. Monroe, and to state my cordial concurrence in its wisdom and 
 sound policy. The reassertion of this principle, especially in reference 
 to North America, is, at this day, but the promulgation of a policy which 
 no European Power should cherish the disposition to resist. Existing 
 rights of every European nation should be respected; but it is due alike 
 to our safety and our interests, that the efficient protection of our laws 
 should be extended over our whole territorial limits, and that it should 
 
15 
 
 [1] 
 
 be distinctly announced to the world as our settled policy, that no future 
 European co ony or dominion shall, with our consent, be planted or estab¬ 
 lished on any part of the Nortli American continent. 
 
 A question has recently arisen under the tenth article of the subsisting 
 treaty between the United States and Prussia. By this article, the con¬ 
 suls of the two countries have the right to sit as judges and arbitrators 
 “ in such differences as may arise between the captains and crews of the 
 vessels belonging to the nation whose interests are committed to their 
 charge, without the interference of the local authorities, unless the con¬ 
 duct of the crews or of the captain should disturb the order or tranquillity 
 of the country; or the said consuls should require their assistance to cause 
 their decisions to be carried into effect or supported.” 
 
 The Prussian consul at New Bedford, in June, 1844, applied to Mr. Jus¬ 
 tice Story to carry into eliect a decision made by him between the cap¬ 
 tain and crew of the Prussian ship Borussia; but the request was refused 
 oil the ground that, without previous legislation by Congress, the judi¬ 
 ciary did not possess the power to give effect to this article of the treaty- 
 The Prussian government, through their minister here, liave comjilained 
 of this violation of the treaty, and have asked the government of the 
 United States to adopt the necessary measures to prevent similar violations 
 hereafter. Good faith to Prussia, as well as to other nations with whom 
 we have similar treaty stipulations, requires that these should be faithfully 
 observed. 1 have deemed it proper, therefore, to lay the subject before 
 Congress, and to recommend such legislation as maybe necessary to give 
 effect to these treaty obligations. 
 
 By virtue of an arrangement made between the Spanish government 
 and that of the United States, in December, 1831, American vessels, since 
 the twenty-ninth of April, 1832, have been admitted to entry in the ports 
 of Spain, including those of the Balearic and Canary islands, on payment 
 of the same tonnage duty of five cents per ton, as though they had been 
 Spanish vessels; and this, whether our vessels arrive in Spain directly 
 from the United States, or indirectly from any other country. When Con¬ 
 gress, by the act of the thirteenth of July, 1832, gave effect to this arrange¬ 
 ment between the two governments, they confined the reduction of ton¬ 
 nage duty merely to Spanish vessels “ coming from a port in Spain,” 
 leaving the former discriminating duty to remain against such vessels 
 coming from a port in any other country. It is manifestly unjust that, 
 whilst American vessels arriving in the ports of Spain from other coun¬ 
 tries pay no more duty than Spanish vessels, Spanish vessels arriving in 
 the ports of the United States from other countries should be subjected to 
 heavy discriminating tonnage duties. This is neither equality nor reci¬ 
 procity, and is in violation of the arrangement concluded in December, 
 1831, between the two countries. The Spanish government have made 
 repeated and earnest remonstrances against this inequality, and the favor¬ 
 able attention of Congress has been several times invoked to the subject 
 by my predecessors. I recommend, as an act of justice to Spain, that this 
 inequality be removed by Congress, and that the discriminating duties 
 which have been levied under the act of the thirteenth of July, 1832, on 
 Spanish vessels coming to the United States from any other foreign coun¬ 
 try, be refunded. This recommendation does not embrace Spanish ves¬ 
 sels arriving in the United States from Cuba and Porto Rico, which will 
 
16 
 
 C.n 
 
 still remain suliject to the provisions of the act of June thirtieth, 1834, 
 concerning tonnage-duty on such vessels. 
 
 By the act of the fourteenth of July, 1832, coffee was exempted from 
 duty altogether. This exemption was universal, without reference to the 
 country where it was produced, or the national character of the vessel in 
 which it was imported. By the tariff act of the thirtieth of August, 1842, 
 this exemption from duty was restricted to coffee imported in American 
 vessels from the place of its production; whilst coffee imported under all 
 other circumstances was subjected to a duty of twenty per cent, ad .va¬ 
 lorem, Under this act, and our existing treaty with the King of the Neth¬ 
 erlands, Java coffee imported from the European ports of that kingdom 
 into the United States, whether in Dutch or American vessels, now pays 
 this rate of duty. The government of the Netherlands complains that 
 such a discriminating duty should have been imposed on coffee, the pro¬ 
 duction of one of its colonies, and which is chiefly brought from Java to 
 the ports of that kingdom, and exported from thence to foreign countries. 
 Our trade with the Netherlands is highly beneficial to both countries, and 
 our relations with them have ever been of the most friendly character. 
 Under all the circumstances of the case, I recommend that this discrim¬ 
 ination should be abolished, and that the coffee of Java, imported from 
 the Netherlands, be placed upon the same footing with that imported di¬ 
 rectly from Brazil and other countries where it is produced. 
 
 Under the eighth section of the tarifi' act of the thirtieth of August, 
 1842, a duty of fifteen cents per gallon was imposed on Port wine in 
 casks; while,on the red wines of several other countries, when imported 
 in casks, a duty of only six cents per gallon was imposed. This dis¬ 
 crimination, so far as regarded the Port wdne of Portugal, was deemed a 
 violation of our treaty with that Power, which, provides, that “ No higher 
 or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United States 
 of America of any ariicle the growth, produce, or manufacture of the 
 kingdom and possessions of Portugal, than such as are or shall be paya¬ 
 ble on the like article being the growth, produce, or manufacture of any 
 other foreign country.” Accordingly, to give effect to the treaty, as well 
 as' to the intention of Congress, expressed in a proviso to the tariff act 
 itself, that nothing therein contained should be so construed as to inter¬ 
 fere with subsisting treaties with foreign nations, a treasury circular was 
 issued on the sixteenth of July, 1844, which, among other things, de¬ 
 clared the duty on the Port wine of Portugal, in casks, under the existing 
 laws and treaty, to bo six cents per gallon, and directed that the excess 
 of duties which had been collected on such wine should be refunded. 
 By virtue of another clause in the same section of the act, it is provided 
 that all imitations of Port, or any other wines, “shall be subject to the 
 duty provided for the genuine article.” Imitations of Port wine, the pro¬ 
 duction of Prance, are imported to some extent into the United States; 
 and the government of that country now claims that, under a correct con¬ 
 struction of the act, these imitations ought not to pay a higher duty than 
 rhal imposed upon the original Port wine of Portugal. It appears to me 
 to be unequal and unjust, that French imitations of Port wine should be 
 subjected to a duty of fifteen cents, while the more valuable article from 
 Portugal should pay a duty of six cents only per gallon. I therefore 
 rbcommend to Congress such legislation as may be necessary to correct 
 the inequality. 
 
17 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 The late President, in liis annual message of December last, recom¬ 
 mended an appropriation to satisfy the claims of tire Texan government 
 against the United Slates, which had been previously adjusted, so far as 
 the powers of the Executive extend. These claims arose out of the act 
 of disarming a body of Texan troops under the command of Major 
 Snively, by an officer in the service of the United States, acting under 
 tire orders of our government; and the forcible entry into liio custom¬ 
 house at Bryarly’s landing, on Red river, by certain citizens of the United 
 States, and taking away therefrom the goods seized by the collector of the 
 customs as forfeited under the laws of Texas. This was a liquidated 
 debt, ascertained to be due to Texas when an independent State. Her 
 acceptance of the terms of annexation proposed by tlie United States 
 does not discharge or invalidate the claim. I recommend that provision 
 be made for its payment. 
 
 The commissioner appointed to China during the special session of the 
 Senate in March last, shortly afterwards set out on his mission in the 
 United States ship Columbus. On arriving at Rio de Janeiro on his 
 passage, the state of his health had become so critical, that, by the advice 
 of his medical attendants, be returned to tlie United States early in the 
 montli of October last. Commodore Biddle, commandins the East India 
 squadron, proceeded on liis voyage in the Columbus, and was charged 
 by lire commissioner with the duty of e.xehanging with the proper author¬ 
 ities the ratifications of the treaty lately concluded with tlie Emperor of 
 China. Since the return of the commissioner to the United States, his 
 health has been much improved, and he entertains the confident belief 
 that he will soon be able to proceed on liis mission. 
 
 Unfortunately, dift'erences continue to exist among some of the nations 
 of South America, which, following onr example, have established their 
 independence; while in others, internal dissensions prevail. It is natural 
 tliat our sympathies should be warmly enlisted for their welfare; that we 
 should desire that all controversies between them should be amicably ad¬ 
 justed, and their governments administered in a manner to protect the 
 rights, and promote the prosperiiy of tiieir people. It is contrary, how¬ 
 ever, to our settled policy, to interfere in their controversies, wiiethei 
 external or internal. 
 
 I have thus adverted to all the subjects connected with our foreign re¬ 
 lations, to which I deem it necessary to call your attention. Our policy 
 is not only peace with all, hut good will towards ail the Powers of the 
 earth. While we are just to all, we require that all shall be just to us. 
 Excepting the differences witli Mexico and Great Britain, our relations 
 with all civilized nations are of the most satisfactory character. It is 
 imped that in tills etilightened age, these differences may bo amicably 
 adjusted. 
 
 Tlie Secretary of the Treasury, iir iris annua! report to Congress, will 
 communicate a Ihll statement of tlie condition of onr finances. J’he im¬ 
 ports for the fiscal 5'ear ending on the thirtieth of June last, were of the 
 value of one hundred and seventeen millions tv;o hundred and fifty-fitur 
 thousand five hundred and si.xty-four dollars, of which the amount ex¬ 
 ported was fifteen millions three hundred and forty-six thousand eiglit 
 hundred and tliirty dollars—leaving a balance of one hundred and one 
 millions nine hundred and seven thousand seven hundred and thirty- 
 four dollars for domestic consumption. The exports for the same year 
 
IS 
 
 [1] 
 
 were of the value of one hundred and fourteen millions six hundred and 
 forty six thousand six hundred and six dollars; of which, the amount 
 of domestic articles was ninety nine millions two hundred and ninety- 
 nine thousand seven hundred and seventy-six dollars. The receipts into 
 the treasury during the same year were twenty-nine millions seven hun¬ 
 dred and sixty-nine thousand one hundred and thirty-three dollars and 
 fifty six cents; of which, there were derived from customs twenty-seven 
 millions five hundred and twenty-eight thousattd one htitidred and twelve 
 dollars and seventy cents; from sales of public lands, two millions seventy- 
 seven thousand and twenty-two dollars and thirty cents; and frotn inciden¬ 
 tal and tntscellaneous sources, one hundred and sixty-three thousand nine 
 hundred and ninety-eight dollars and fifty-six cents. The expenditures 
 for the same period were twenty-nine millions nine hundred and sixty- 
 eight thousand two hundred and six dollars and ninety-eight cents; of 
 which, eight millions five hundred and eighty-eight thousand one hun¬ 
 dred and fifty seven dollars and sixty-two cents were applied to the pay¬ 
 ment of the public debt. The balance in the treasury on the first of July 
 last, was seven millions six hundred and fifty-eight thousand three hun¬ 
 dred and six dollars and twenty-two cents. 
 
 The amount of the public debt remaining unpaid on the first of Oc¬ 
 tober last, was seventeen millions seventy-five thousand four hundred 
 and forty five dollars and fifty-two cents. Further payments of the pub¬ 
 lic debt would have been made, in anticipation of the period of its reim¬ 
 bursement under the authority conferred upon the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
 ury by the acts of July twenty-first, 1841, and of April fifteenth, 1848, 
 and March third, 1843, had not the unsettled stale of our relations with 
 Mexico menaced hostile collision with that Power. In view of such a 
 contingency, it was deemed prudent to retain in the treasury an amount 
 unusually large for ordinary purposes. 
 
 A few years ago, our whole national debt growing out of the Revolu¬ 
 tion and the war of 1812 with Groat llritain was extinguished, and we 
 presented to the world the rare and noble spectacle of a great and growing 
 people who had fully discharged every obligation. Since that time, the 
 existing debt has been contracted ; and small as it is, in comparison with 
 the similar burdens of most other nations, it should be extinguished at the 
 earliest practicable period. Should the state of the country permit, and, 
 especially, if our foreign relations interpose no obstacle, it is contemplated 
 to apply ail the moneys in the treasury, as they accrue beyond what is 
 required for the appropriations by Congress, to its liquidation. I cherish 
 the hope of soon being able to congratulate the country on its recovering 
 once more the lofty position which it so recently occupied. Our country, 
 which exhibits to the world the benefits of self-government, in developing 
 all the sources of national prosperity, owes to mankind the permanent ex¬ 
 ample of a nation free from the blighting influence of a public debt. 
 
 The attention of Congress is invited to the importance of making suit¬ 
 able modifications and reductions of the rates of duty imposed by our 
 present tariff laws. The objeqt of imiwsing duties on imports should be 
 to raise revenue to pay the necessary expenses of government. Congress 
 may, undoubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretton, discriminate in 
 arranging the rates of duty on different articles; but the discriminations 
 should be within the revenue standard, and be made with the view to 
 raise money for the support of government. 
 
19 
 
 tn 
 
 It becomes important to undorstaml distinctly what is meant by a rev¬ 
 enue standard, tlie maximum of which sho\ild not be exceeded in the 
 rates of duty imposed. It is conceded, and experience proves, that duiies 
 may be laid so high as to diminish or prohibit altogether the importation 
 of any given article, and thereby lessen or destroy the revenue which, at 
 lower rates, would be derived from its importation. Such duties exceed 
 the revenue rates, and are not imposed to raise money for the snpp.irt of 
 government. If Congress levy a duty for revenue of one per cent, on a 
 given article, it will produce a given amount of money to the treasury, 
 and will incidentally and necessarily afford protection or advantage to the 
 amount of one per cent, to the home manufacturer of a similar or like 
 article over the importer. If the duty be raised to teu per cent., it will 
 prodnce a greater amount of money, and afford greater protection. If it 
 be still raised to twenty, twenty five, or thirty per cent., and if, as it is 
 raised, the revenue derived from it is found to bo increased, the protection 
 or advantage will also be increased; but if it be raised to tliirty one per 
 cent., and it is found that the revenue produced at that rate is less than at 
 thirty per cent., it ceases to be a revenue duty. 'I'ho precise point in the 
 ascending scale of duties at which it is ascenained from experience tliat 
 the revenue is grcate.st, is the maximum rate of duty which can be laid for 
 the bniia fide purpose of collecting money for the support of govermiieiit. 
 To raise the duties higher than'that point, and thereby diminish the 
 aiuouiit collected, is to levy them for protection merely, and not for rov- 
 eiiue. As long, then, as Congress may gradually increase the rate of duty 
 on a given article, and the revonne is increased by such increase of duty, 
 they are within tiie revemie standard. When they go beyond that point, 
 and as they increase the duties, the revenue is diminished or destroyed; 
 the act ceases to have for its object the raising of money to support gov- 
 erniiieiil, but is for protection merely. 
 
 it does not follow that Congress slimikl levy the highest duty on all 
 articles of import which they will hear within the revenue standard; for 
 such rates would probably produce a much larger amount than the eco- 
 nomical administration of the government would require. Mordoes it fol¬ 
 low that the duties on all articles should bo at the same, or a horizontal 
 rate. Some articles will bear a much higher revenue duty than others. 
 Below the maximum of the revenue standard Congress may and ought 
 to discriminate in the rates imposed, taking care so to adjust them on dif¬ 
 ferent articles as to prodnce in the aggregate the amount which, when 
 added to the proceeds of tiie sales of puhlic lands, may be needed to pay 
 the economical expeiise.s of the govenniieiit. 
 
 Ill levying a tarifl’of duties Congress exercise the taxing power, and 
 for purposes of revenue may select the objects of taxation. They may 
 exempt certain articles altogether, and permit their importation free of duty. 
 On others they may impose low duties. In these classes should be em¬ 
 braced such articles of necessity as are in general use, and especially 
 such as Me consumed by the laborer and poor, as well as by the 
 wealthy citizen. Care should be taken that all the great interests of the 
 country, including manufaclnres, agriculture, commerce, navigation, and 
 the mechanic arts, should, as far as may be practicable, derive equal ad¬ 
 vantages from the incidental protection which a just system of revenue 
 duties may afford. Taxation, direct nr indirect, is a burden, and it should 
 be so imposed as to operate as equally as may be on all classes, in the 
 
20 
 
 [I] 
 
 proportion of tlioir ability to bear it. To make the taxing power an actual 
 benefit to one class, necessarily increases the burden of the others beyond 
 their proportion, and would be manifestly unjust. The terms “protec¬ 
 tion to doinesiic industry,” are of popular import; but they should apply 
 under a just system to all the various branches of industry in our coun¬ 
 try. The iiiruier or planter who toils yearly in his fields, is engaged in 
 “ domestic industry,” and is as much entitled to have his labor “ protect¬ 
 ed,” as the maniilacturer, the man of commerce, the navigator, or the 
 mechanic, who are engaged also in “ domestic industry” in their dif¬ 
 ferent pursuits. The joint labors of all these classes constitute the ag¬ 
 gregate of the “ domestic industry” of the nation, and they are equally 
 entitled to the nation’s “protection.” JNo one of them can justly claim to 
 be the e.xclusive recipients of “protection,” which can only be aflbrded 
 by increasing burdens on the “domestic industry” of the others. 
 
 If those view.s be correct, it remains to inquire how far the tariff act of 
 1842 is consistent with them. That many of the provisions of that act 
 are in violation of the cardinal principles hero laid down, all must con¬ 
 cede. I’iic rates ofdiUy imposed by it on some articles are prohibitory, 
 and on others so high as greatly to diminish importations, and to produce 
 a less amount of revenue than would be derived from lower rates. They 
 operate as “protection merely,” to one branch of “domestic industry,” by 
 taxing other branches. 
 
 By the introduction of minimums, or assumed and false values, and by 
 the imposition of specific duties, the injustice and inequality of the act of 
 1642 in its practical operations on dilferent classes and pursuits are seen 
 and felt. Many ol' the oppressive duties imposed by it under tire opora- 
 tkn of these principles, range from one per cent, to more than two hun¬ 
 dred percent. They are prohibitory on some articles, and partially so on 
 others, and bear most heavily on articles of common necessity, and bat 
 lightly on articles of luxury. It is so framed that much the greatest bur¬ 
 den which it imposes is thrown on labor and the poorer classes who are 
 least able to bear it, while it protects capital and exempts the rich from 
 paying their just proportion of the taxation required for the support of 
 government. While it protects the capital of the wealthy manufacturer, 
 and increases his profits, it does not benefit the operatives or laborers in 
 his employment, whose wages have not been increased by it. Articles 
 of prime necessity or of coarse quality and low price, used by the masses 
 of the people, are, in many instances, subjected by it to heavy taxes, 
 while articles of finer quality and higher price, or of luxury, which can 
 be used only by the opulent, are ligiitly taxed. It imposes heavy and 
 unjust burdens on the fanner, tlie planter, the commercial man, and those 
 of all other pursuits except the capitalist who has made his investments 
 in mamii'aclures. All the great interests of the country are not, as nearly 
 as may bo practicable, equally protected by it. 
 
 I’lie government in theory knows no distinction of persons or classes, 
 and should not bestow upon some favors and privileges which all others 
 may not enjoy. It was the purpose of its illustrious foutidcrs to base the 
 institutions which they reared upon the great and unchanging principle.s 
 pi justice and equity, conscious that if administered in tlie spirit in which 
 they were conceived, they would he lelt only by the henefiis which they 
 dilTiised, and would secure for themselves a defence in the hearts of the 
 people more ijowcrful than standing armies, and all the means and ap- 
 
21 
 
 [1] 
 
 plinncos invented to sustain governments founded in injustice and oppres- 
 
 The well known fact that the tariff act of 1S42 was passed bp a ma¬ 
 jority of one vote in tiie Senate, and two in the Flonse of Represonlaiives, 
 and that some of those who felt themselves constrained, under the pecu¬ 
 liar circumstances existing at the time, to vote in its favor, proclaimed its 
 defects, and expressed their determination to aid in its modification on 
 the first opportunity, allbrds strong and conclusive evidence that it was 
 not intended to be permatient, and of the expediency and necessity of its 
 tliorough revision. 
 
 In recommending to Congress a reduction of the present rates of duty, 
 and a revision and modification of the act of 1842, I am far from enter¬ 
 taining opinions unfriendly to the mamilacturors. On the contrary, I 
 desire to see them prosperous, as far as they can be so, williout imposing 
 unequal burdens on other interests. The advantage under any sysletn 
 of indirect taxation, even within the revenue .standard, must be in 
 favor of the nuinufactnring interest; and of this, no other interest will 
 complain. 
 
 I recommend to Congress the abolition of the minimum principle, or 
 assumed, arbitrary, and false values, and of specific duties, and the sub¬ 
 stitution in tlieir place of ad valorem duties, as the fairest and most equi¬ 
 table indirect tax which can be imposed. By the ad valorem, priucipla, 
 all articles are ta.xed according to their cost or value, and those which are 
 of inferior quality, or of small cost, bear only the just proportion of the 
 tax with those which are of superior quality or greater cost. The articles 
 consumed by all are taxed at tiie same rate. A system of ad valorem 
 revenue duties, with proper discriminations and proper guards against 
 frauds in collecting them, it is not doubted, will alford ample incidental 
 advantages to the manufacturers, and enable them to derive as groat 
 profits as can be derived from any other regular business. It is believed 
 that such a system, strictly within the revenue standard, will place tiie 
 manufacturing interests on a .stable fooling, and inure to their permanent 
 advantage; while it will, as nearly as may bo practicable, extend to ali 
 the great interests of the country the incidental protection wliicli can be 
 afforded by onr revenue laws. Such a system, when once firmly estab¬ 
 lished, would be permanent, and not be subject to tiie constant com¬ 
 plaints, agitations, and changes which must ever occur when duties are 
 not laid for revenue, but for the “ protection merely” of a favored interest 
 
 In the deliberations of Congress on this subject, it is lioped tliat a spirit 
 of mutual concession and compromise between conflicting interests may 
 jrrevail, and that the result of tlieir labors may be crowned with the hap¬ 
 piest consequences. 
 
 By tlie constitution of the United States it is nrovided, tliat “ no money 
 shall bo drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations 
 made by law.” A public treasury was undoubtedly contemplated and 
 intended to be created, in which the public money should be kept from 
 the period of collection until needed for public uses. In the coilectiori 
 and disbursement of the public money, no agencies have ever been em¬ 
 ployed by law except such as were appointed by the government, directly 
 responsible to it, and under its control. Tlie safe keeping of the public 
 inoiioy should be confided to a public treasury created by law, and under 
 like resjvirsibility and control. It is not to be imagined that tlie framers 
 
22 
 
 [1] 
 
 of the constitution could have intended that a treasury should he created 
 as a place of uepnsite and safe keeping of the public nioiioy which was 
 irresponsihle to the goveritinent. The first Congress under the ciiiistim- 
 tinn, by the act of the second of Septenibcr, 17^9, “to establish the 
 Treasury Dopartnient,” provided for the ap-pointnient of a treasurer, and 
 made it his duty “ to receive and keep the moneys of tlie United Slates,” 
 and “at all limes to suhmit to the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
 Comptroller, or either of them, the inspei’iion of the moneys in his hands.” 
 
 Thai banks, national or stale, could not have been intended to be used 
 as a substitute for the treasury spoken of in the constilnfon, as keepers 
 of llic public nionoy, is manifest from the fact, that at that lime there was 
 no national hank, aird but three or friir Stale hanks of limited capital ex¬ 
 isted in the coniilry. Their employment as depositories was at first re¬ 
 sorted to, to a limited extent, hut with no avowed iiiteiilioii ofcouuuuing 
 them permaiiemly, in place of the treasury of the constiiuiioii. When 
 iliey were afterwards from time to time employed, it was from motives 
 of supposed convenience. 
 
 Oiir experience has shown, that when banking corporations have been 
 the keepers of the public money, and been thereby made in effect the 
 treasury, the government can have no guaranty that it can command the 
 use of its own money for public |)urposes. I'he late Bank of the United 
 Stales proved to be faithless. I’he State banks which were afterwards 
 employed were faithless. But a few years ago, with millions of imblic 
 money in their keeping, the govermnent was brought almost to bank¬ 
 ruptcy, and the public credit seriously impaired, because of their inability 
 or indisposition to pay, on demand, to the public creditors, in the oidy 
 currency recognised by the con liuiiion. Their failure occurred in a 
 peiind of |eace, and great inconvenience and loss were sufleivd by the 
 public from it. Had the country been involved in a foreign war, that in¬ 
 convenience and loss would have been much greater, and might have 
 resulted in extreme public calamity. The public money should not be 
 mingled with the private fuiids of banks or individnaks, or be used for 
 private purposes. When it is placed in banks for safe keeping, it is in 
 effect loaned to them without interest, and is loaned by them upon inter¬ 
 est to the borrowers from them. The public money is convened into 
 banking capital, and is used and loaned out for the. private profit of bank 
 stockholders, and when called for, (as was the case in 1S37,) it may he in 
 the pockets of the borrowers from the banks, instead of being in llie pub¬ 
 lic treasury contemplated by the cou.stilutioii. The framers of the con¬ 
 stitution could never have intended that the money paid into the treasury 
 should be thus converted to private use, and placed beyond the control 
 of the government. 
 
 Banks which hold the public money are often tempted, by a desire of 
 gain, to extend their loans, increase their ciiTulation, and thus stimulate, 
 if not produce a spirit of speculation and extravagance., which sooner or 
 later must result in ruin to thousands. If the public money be not per¬ 
 mitted to ht: thus used, but be kept in llio treasury and paid out to the 
 public creditors in gold and silv. r, the loirlptalioii afforded by its deposito 
 with baidrs to an undue expansion of their business would be cliecked, 
 while the ainonnt of the coiisliluiional cnrrcncy left in circulation would 
 be enlarged by its employment iii the public collections and disburse- 
 
23 [ 1 ] 
 
 jiients, and the banks themselves would in consequence be found in a 
 safer and sounder condition. 
 
 At present, State banks are employed as depositories, but without ade¬ 
 quate regulation of law, whereby the public money can be secured 
 against the casualties and excesses, revulsions, suspensions, and defalca¬ 
 tions, to which, from.overissues, overtrading, an inordinate desiie lor 
 gain, or other causes, they are constantly exposed. The Secretary of the 
 Treasury has in all cases, when it was practicable, taken collateral seen, 
 rity for the amount which they hold, by the pledge of stocks of the Uni¬ 
 ted States, or such of the States as were in good credit. Some of the 
 depnsite banks have given this description of security, and others have 
 declined to do so. 
 
 Entertaining the opinion that “the separation of the moneys of the 
 government from banking institutions is indispensable lor the safety of 
 the funds of the government and the rights of the people,” I recommend 
 to Congress that provision be made by law for such septtration, and that a 
 constiuitional treasury be created for tlte safe-keeping of the public mo¬ 
 ney. The constitutional treasury recommended is designed as a secure 
 depository for the public money, without any ))ower to malte loans or 
 discounts, or to issue any paper whatever as a currency or circulation. 
 I cannot doubt that such a treasury as was contemplated by the consti¬ 
 tution should bo independent of all banking corporations. The money of 
 the people should he kept in tlie treasury of tlie people created by law, and 
 be in the custody of agents of the people chosen by liiemselves, accord¬ 
 ing to the forms of the constiuition ; agents who are directly responsible 
 to the government, who are tinder adequate bonds and oaths, and who 
 are sultject to severe pttni.shments for any embezzlement, private use, or 
 misapplication of tlte public funds, and for any failure in other respects 
 to perform their duties. To say that the people or their government are 
 incompetent, or not to be trusted with the custody of their own money, 
 in their own treasury, provided by themselves, but must rely on the pre 
 sidents, cashiers, and stockliolders of banking corporations, not appointed 
 by them, nor responsible to them, would be to concede that they are iu- 
 competetit for self-government. 
 
 In recommending the establishment of a constitutional treasury, in 
 which the pnbiic. money shall be kept, 1 desire that adequate provision be 
 made by law for its safety, and that all E.xeoitlivo discretion or control 
 over it shall be removed, except such as may be necessary in directing 
 its disbiirsement in pur.siiance of appropriations raado by law. 
 
 Under onr present land system, limiting tlie minimum price at which 
 the public lands can bo entered to one dollar and twenty-five cents per 
 acre, large quantities of lands of inferior quality remain unsold, because 
 they will not command that price. From the records of tlie General Laud 
 Office it appears, that, of the public lands remaining unsold in the several 
 States and Territories in which tliey arc situated, thirty-nine millions one 
 hundred and five tliousand five hundred and seventy seven acres Iiave 
 been in the market, subject to entry more llian twenty years; forty-nine 
 millions six hundred and thirty eigbt thousand six hundred and forty- 
 four acres for more than fifteen years; seventy-three millions seventy four 
 thousand and six hundred acres for more tliaii ton years; and one Imn- 
 dred and six millions one hundred and seventy-six thousand nine luiii- 
 dred and sixty-one acres for more than five years. Much the largest 
 
24 
 
 [1] 
 
 portion of these lands will continue to be unsaleable at the niinimam 
 price at which they are permitted to be sold, so long as large territories of 
 lands from which tlie more valuable portions have not been selected are 
 aiinually brought into market by the government. AVith the view to the 
 sale anti settlement of these inferior lands, I recommend that the price be 
 graduated and reduced below the present minimum rate, confining the 
 sales at the reduced prices to settlers and cultivators, in limited quantities. 
 If graduated and reduced in price for a limited term to one dollar per acre, 
 and after the expiration of that period for a second and third term to lower 
 rates, a large portion of these lands would be purchased, and many worthy 
 citizens, who are unable to pay higher rates, could purchase homes for 
 themselves and their families. By adopting the policy of graduation and 
 roduction of price, these inferior land.s will be sold for their real value, 
 while the States in which they lie will be freed from the inconvenience, 
 if not itjjustice, to-which they are subjected, in consequence of the United 
 States continuing to own large quantities of the public lands within their 
 borders, not liable to taxation for the support of their local governments. 
 
 I recommend the continuance of the policy of granting pre emptions, 
 in its most liberal extent, to all those who have settled, or may hereafter 
 settle, on the public lands, whether surveyed or unsurveyed, to which the 
 Indian title may have been extinguished at the time of settlement. It 
 has been found by experience, that in consequence of combinations of pur¬ 
 chasers and other causes, a very small quantity of the public lands, when 
 sold at public auction, commands a higher price than the minimum rate 
 established by law. The settlers on the public lands are, however, but 
 rarely able to secure their homes and improvements at the public sales at 
 that rate; because these combinations, by means of the capital they com¬ 
 mand, and their superior ability to purchase, render it impossible for the 
 settler to compete with them in the market. By putting down all compe¬ 
 tition, these combinations of capitalists and speculators are usually enabled 
 to purchase the lands, including the improvements of the settlers, at the 
 minimum price of the government, and either turn them out of their 
 homes, or extort from them, according to their ability to pay, double or 
 quadruple the amount paid for them to the government. It is to the 
 enterprise and perseverance of the hardy pioneers of the West, who pene¬ 
 trate the wilderness with their families, suffer the dangers, the privations, 
 and hardships attending the settlement of a new country, and prepare the 
 way for the body of emigrants who, in the course of a few years, usually 
 follow them, that we are, in a great degree, indebted for the rapid exten¬ 
 sion and aggrandizement of our counlrjn 
 
 Kxperience has proved that no portion of our population are more patri¬ 
 otic than the hardy and brave men of the frontier, or more ready to obey 
 the call of their country, and to defend her rights and her honor, when¬ 
 ever and by whatever, enemy assailed. They should be protected from 
 the grasping speculator, and secured, at the minimum price of the public 
 lands, in the humble homes which they have improved by their labor. 
 With this end in view, all vexatious or unnecessary restrictions imposed 
 upon them by the existing pre emption laws, should be repealed or modi¬ 
 fied. It is the true policy of the government to afford facilities to its citi- 
 zetis to become the owners of small portions of our vast public domain 
 at low and moderate rates. 
 
 The present system of managing the mineral lands of the United States 
 
25 
 
 [1] 
 
 is believed to be radically defective. More than a million of acres of the 
 public lands, supposed to contain lead and oilier minerals, have been re¬ 
 served from sale, and numerous leases upon them have been granted to 
 individuals upon a stipulated rent. The system of granting leases has 
 proved to be not only unprofitable to the government, but unsatisfactory 
 to the citizens who have gone upon the lands, and must, if continued, 
 lay the foundation of much future diflicuUy between the government and 
 the lessees. According to the official records, the amount of rents received 
 by the government for the years 1841, 1842, 1S43, and 1844, was sis 
 thousand three hundred and fifty-four dollars and seventy-four cents; 
 while the expenses of the system during the same period, including sala¬ 
 ries of superintendents, agents, clerks, and incidental expenses, were 
 twenty-six thousand one hundred and eleven dollars and eleven cents; 
 the income being less than one-fourth of the expenses, 't o this pecuni¬ 
 ary loss may be added the injury sustained by the public in consequence 
 of the destruction of timber, and the careless and wasteful manner of 
 working the mines. The system has given rise to much litigation be¬ 
 tween the United States and individual citizens, producing irritation and 
 excitement in the mineral region, and involving the government in heavy 
 additional expenditures. It is believed that similar losses and embarrass¬ 
 ments will continue to occur, while the present system of leasing these 
 lands remains unchanged. These lands are now under the superintend¬ 
 ence and care of the War Department, with the ordinary duties of which 
 they h'ave no proper or natural connexion. 1 recommend the repeal of 
 the present system, and tliat these lands be placed under the superintend¬ 
 ence and management of the General Laud Office, as otlier public lands, 
 and be brought into market and sold upon sncli terms as Congrc.ss in 
 their wisdom may proscribe, reserving to the government an equitable 
 per ceiuago of the gross amount of mineral product, and that the pre¬ 
 emption principle be extended to resident miners and settlers upon them, 
 at the minimum price which may he established by Congress. 
 
 I refer you to tlie accompanying report of the Secretary of War, for in¬ 
 formation respecting the present situation of the army, and its operations 
 during the past year; the state of our defences; the condition of the pub¬ 
 lic works; and our relations with the various Indian tribes within our 
 limits or upon our borders. I invite your attention to the suggestions 
 contained in that report in relation to these prominent objects of national 
 interest. 
 
 When orders were given during the past summer for concentrating a 
 military force on the western frontier of Texas, our troops were widely 
 dispersed, and in small detachments, occupying posts remote from each 
 other. The prompt and expeditious manner in which an army, embra¬ 
 cing more than half our peace establishment, was drawn together on an 
 emergency so sudden, reflects great credit on the officers who were 
 intrusted with the e.xecution of these orders, as well as upon the discipline 
 of the army itself To be in strength to protect and defend the people 
 and territory of Texas, in the event Mexico should commence hostilities, 
 or invade her territories with a large army, which she threatened, I author¬ 
 ized the general assigned to the command of the army of occupation to 
 make requisitions for additional forces from several of the Stales nearest 
 Che Texan territory, and which could most expeditiously furnish them, if, 
 in his opinion, a larger force than that under his command, and the aux- 
 
26 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 iliary aid wliicli, under like circumstances, he was authorized to receive 
 from 'i'exas, should be required. The, contingency upon which the ex¬ 
 ercise of this authority depended, has not occurred. The circumstances 
 under which two companies of State artillery from the city of Kew Orleans 
 were sent into 'I’exas, and mustered into the service of the United Slates, 
 are fully stated in the report of the Secretary of War. I recommend to 
 Congress that provision be made for the payment of these troops, as well 
 as a small number of Texan volunteers, whom the commanding general 
 thought it necessary to receive or muster into our service. 
 
 During the last summer, the first regiment of dragoons made extensive 
 excursions through the Indian country on our borders, a part of them ad¬ 
 vancing nearly to the possessions of the Hudson’s Bay Company in the 
 north, and a part as far as the South Pass of the Rocky mountains, and 
 the head waters of the tributary streams of the Colorado of the West. The 
 exhibition of this military force among the Indian tribes in those distant 
 regions, and the councils held with them by the commanders of the ex¬ 
 peditions, it is believed, will have a salutary influence in restraining them 
 from hostilities among themselves, and maintaining friendly relations be¬ 
 tween them and the United States. An interesting account of one of 
 these excursions accompanies the report of the Secretary of War. Under 
 the directions of the War Department, Brevet Captain Uremont, of the 
 corps of topographical engineers, has been employed since 1842 in ex¬ 
 ploring the country west of the Mississippi, and beyond the Rocky moun¬ 
 tains. 'Pwo expeditions have already been brought to a close, and the 
 reports of that scientific and enterprising officer have furnished much in¬ 
 teresting and valuable information. He is now engaged in a third expe¬ 
 dition ; "but it is not expected that this arduous service will he completed 
 in season to enable me to communicate the result to Congress at the 
 present session. 
 
 Our relations with the Indian tribes are of a favorable character. The 
 policy of removing them to a country designed for their permanent resi¬ 
 dence, west of the Mississippi and without the limits of the organized 
 States and 'I'erritories, is better appreciated by them than it was a few 
 years ago; while education is now attended to, and the habits of civil¬ 
 ized life are gaining ground among them. 
 
 Serious difficulties of long standing continue to distract the several 
 parties into which the Cherokees are unhappily divided. 'Fhe efforts of 
 the goveriiment to adjust the difficulties between them, have hcretolbre 
 proved unsuccessful; and there remains no probability that this desirable 
 object can be accomplished without the aid of further legislation by Con¬ 
 gress. I will, at an early period of your session, present the subject for 
 your consideration, accompanied with an exposition of thecomplainis and 
 claims of the several parties into which the nation is divided, with a view 
 to the adoption of such moastire.s by Congress as may enable the Execu¬ 
 tive to do justice to them respectively, and to put an cud, if possible, to 
 the di.ssensions which have long prevailed, and still prevail, among them. 
 
 I refer you to the report of the Secretary of the Navy for the present 
 condition of that branch of the national defence; and fir grave sagges- 
 tions, having for their object the increase of its efficiency, and a greater 
 economy in its management. During the past year the officers and men 
 have perlornied their duty in a satisfactory manner. The orders which 
 have been given, have been executed with promptness and fidelity. A 
 
27 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 lai'ger force than has often formed one squadron under our flag was readily 
 concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico, and apparently without unusual ef¬ 
 fort. It is especially to be observed, tliat notwithstanding the union of 
 so considerable a force, no act was committed that even the jealousy of 
 an irritated power could construe as an act of aggression ; and tliat the 
 coiiiniander of the squadron, and Iris ollicors, in strict conformity with 
 their itisintctious, holding themselves ever ready for tlie most active duty, 
 have acitieved the still purer glory of cotttributing to the preservatioti of 
 peace. It is uelioved that at all our foreign stations the hotter of our flag 
 has beott maititained, and that generally our ships of war have beeti dis¬ 
 tinguished for llteir good discipline and order. I am happy to add, that 
 the display of maritime force which was required by tite events of the 
 summer has been made wholly within the usual appropriations for the 
 service of the year, so that no additional appropriations are required. 
 
 The commerce of the United States, and with it the navigating interests, 
 have steadily and rapidly increased since the organization of our govern¬ 
 ment, nntil, it is believed, we are now second to but one Power in the 
 world, and at no distant day we shall probably be inferior to none. Ex¬ 
 posed as they must bo, it has been a wise policy to afford to these im¬ 
 portant interests protection with our ships of war, distributed in the great 
 highways of trade throughout the world. For more than thirty years 
 appropriations have been made, and annually expended, for the gradual 
 increase of our naval forces. In peace, our navy performs the important 
 duty of protecting our commerce ; and, in the event of war, will be, as it 
 ha.s been, a most cflicieut means of defence. 
 
 'I'he succe.ssful use of steam navigation on the ocean has been followed 
 by the introduction of war steamers in great and increasing nunjbers 
 into the navies of the principal maritime Powers of the world. A due 
 regard to our own safety and to an elficieut protection to our large and 
 iiicre.rsiug commerce demaiids a correspoudiiig increase on our part. i\o 
 country has greater'facilities for the construction of vessels of this de¬ 
 scription than onrs, nr can promise itself greater advantages from their 
 employment. They are admirably adapted to the protection of onr eoin- 
 merce, to the inpid tiansmission of intelligence, and to the coast defence. 
 In pursuance of the wise policy ol a gradual increase of our navy, largo 
 supplies of live oak timber, and oilier materials for ship building, liave 
 been collected, and are now under shelter and in a slate of good preserva¬ 
 tion, while iron steamers can be built with great facility in various parts 
 of liio Union. The use of iron as a material, especially in the consirtic- 
 tion of steamers, which can enter with safety many of the harbors along 
 onr coast now inaccessible to t ossels of greater draught, and the practi¬ 
 cability of constructing them in the interior, strongly recommends that 
 liberal appropriations should bo made for this important object. What¬ 
 ever may have been oirr policy in the earlier stages of the government, 
 wlicn the nation was in its infancy, our shipping interests and commerce 
 comparatively small, onr resources limited, our population sparse and 
 scarcely oxuaidiiig beyond the limits of the original thirteen States, that 
 policy must he esseiitially diilerent now that we have grown from three 
 to more tliaii twenty millions of people,—that our commerce, carried in 
 our own ships, is found in every sea, and that our territorial boundaries 
 ami seiilcmeiits liave been so greatly expanded. Neitlier our commerce, 
 nor our long line of coast on the ocean and on the lakes, can be success- 
 
28 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 fully defended against foreign aggression by means of fortifications alone. 
 These are essential at important commercial and military points, but our 
 chief reliance for this object mtist be on a well-organized, cffieieut navy. 
 The benefits resulting from such a navy are not confined to the Atlantic 
 States. The productions of the interior which seek a market abroad, 
 are directly dependent on the safety and freedom of our commerce. 'I’he 
 occupation of the IJalize below New Orleans by a hostile force would em¬ 
 barrass, if tiot stagnate, the whole c.xport trade of the Mississippi, and 
 affect the value of the agricultural products of the entire valley of that 
 mighty river anct its tributaries. 
 
 It has never been our policy to maintain large standing armies in time 
 of peace. They are contrary to the genius of our free institutions, would 
 impose heavy burdens on the people, and he dangerous to public liberty. 
 Our reliance fir protection and defence on the land must be mainly on 
 ourcittzeii soldiers, who will be ever ready, as they ever have been ready 
 in times past, to rush with alacrity, at the call of their country, to her de¬ 
 fence. This description of force, however, cannot defend our coast, har¬ 
 bors, and inland seas, nor protect our commerce on the ocean or the lakes. 
 These must be protected by our navy. 
 
 Considering an increased naval force, and especially of steam ves.sels 
 corresponding with our growtli and importance as a nation, atid propor¬ 
 tioned to the increased and increasing naval power of other nations, of 
 vast importanco as regards our safety, and the great and growing iuteiests 
 to be protected by it, I recommend the subject to the favorable considera¬ 
 tion of Congress. 
 
 The report of the Postmaster Getieral herewith communicated contains 
 a detailed statement of the operations of his department during the past 
 5 ’ear. it will bo .seen that tlio income from postages will fall short of the 
 expenditures for the year hetweou one and two millions of dollars. This 
 deficiency lias been caused by the reduction of the rales of postage, which 
 was made by tlio act of the third of March last. No principle has been more 
 generally acquiesced in by the pooiile than that tliis department should 
 sustain itself by limiting its expenditures to its income. Congress lias 
 never sought to maice it a source of revenue for general purposes, except 
 fora sliort period during the last war with Great Britain, iior should it 
 ever become a ciiarge on the general treasury. If Congress sliall adhere 
 to tliis principle, as I think they ought, it will be necessary either to cur¬ 
 tail the present mail service, .so as to reduce the expenditures, or so to 
 modify the act of the third of March last as to improve its revenues. 'I’lie 
 extension of tho mail service, and tlie additional facilities which will be 
 demanded by tlie rapid extension and increase of population on our west¬ 
 ern frontier, will not admit of such curtailment as will materially reduce 
 the present expenditures. In the adjustment of the tariif of postages, the 
 interests of llie people demand that the lowest rales be adopted which 
 will produce the necessary revenue to meet the expenditures of the de¬ 
 partment. I invite tlie atteiiiiou of Congress to the suggestions of the 
 Postma.^ler General on this subject, under the belief that such a modifi¬ 
 cation of the late law may be made as will yield sufficient revenue with¬ 
 out further calls on the treasury, and with very little change in tiie present 
 rales of postage. 
 
 Proper measures iiave been taken, in pursuance of the act of the iliird 
 of March last, for tlie osiahlishment of lines of mail steamers between tliis 
 
29 [ 1 ] 
 
 and foreign countries. Tlic importance of ibis service commends itself 
 strongly to liivorai.le cori.sideration. 
 
 Wflli the growth of our country, the public business which devolves 
 on the heads of the several executive departments has greatly incieased. 
 In some respects, the distribution of duties among them seems to be in- 
 coiigriious, and many of these might bo transferred from one to another 
 with advantage to the public interests. A more anspicious time for the 
 consideration of this subject by Congress, with a view to system in the 
 organization of the several departments, and a more appropiiate division 
 of the public business, will not probably occur. 
 
 The, most important duties of the State Department relate to our for¬ 
 eign atl'airs. By the great enlargement of the family of nations, tlie in¬ 
 crease of our commerce, and tiie corresponding extension of our consular 
 system, the business of this department has been greatly increased. In 
 its present organization, many duties of a domestic nature, and consist¬ 
 ing of details, are devolved on the Secretary of State, which do not ap¬ 
 propriately belong to the foreign department of the government, and inay 
 properly be transferred to some other department. One of tlicse grows 
 out of the present state of the law concerning the Patent Office, which, 
 a few years since, was a subordinate clerkship, but has become a distinct 
 bureau of great importance. With an excellent internal organization, it 
 is still connected with the State Department. In the transaction of its 
 business, questions of mncli importance to inventors, and to the commu¬ 
 nity, frequently arise, which, by existing laws, are referred for decision to 
 a board, of whicli the Secretary of State is a member. These questions 
 ate legal, and the connexion which now exists between the State De¬ 
 partment and tlio Patent Office, may, with groat propriety and advantage, 
 be transferred to the Attorney General. 
 
 In his last annual message to Congress, Mr. Madison invited attention 
 to a proper provision for the Attorney General as “an important improve¬ 
 ment in the executive establishment.” Tills recommendation was re¬ 
 peated by some of his successors. The official duties of the Attorney 
 General have been much increased within a few years, and his office has 
 become one of groat importance. His duties may be still further in¬ 
 creased with advantage to the public interests. As an executive officer, 
 his re.sidence and constant attention at the seat of government arc re¬ 
 quired. Legal questions, involving important principles, and large 
 amounts of public money, are constantly referred to him by the Presi¬ 
 dent and o.xecutive departments for his examination and decision. The 
 public business under his official management before the judiciary has 
 been so augmented by the extension of our territory, and the acts of 
 Congress authorizing suits against the United States for large bodies of 
 valuable public lands, as greatly to increase his labors and responsibili¬ 
 ties. I therefore recommend that the Attorney General be placed on the 
 same fooling with the heads of the other e.xecntive departments, with 
 such subordinate officers, jirovided by law for his departnient, as may be 
 required to discharge the additional duties which have been or may he 
 devolved upon him. 
 
 Congress possess the power of exclusive legislation over the District of 
 Columbia, and I commend the interests of its inhabitants to your favor¬ 
 able cnnsideialion. The people of this District have no legislative body 
 of their own, and must confide their local as well as their general inter- 
 
[ 1 ] 30 
 
 ests to representatives in whose election they have no voice, and ovej 
 whose ollicial conducr they have no control. Each member of the Na¬ 
 tional Legislature should consider himself as their immediate represent¬ 
 ative, atid should be the more ready to give attention to their interests 
 and wants, because he is not respon-sible to them. 1 recommend that a 
 liberal and generous spirit may characterize your measures in relation to 
 them. I shall be ever disposed to show a proper regard for their wishes, 
 and. within constitutional limits, shall at all times clieerlully co operate 
 with you for the advancement of their welfare. 
 
 ■ 1 trust it may not be deemed inappropriate to the occasion for me to 
 dwell for a moment on the memory of the most eminent citizen of out 
 country, who, during the summer that is gone by, has descended to the 
 tomb. The enjoyment of contemplating, at the advanced age of neat 
 fourscore years, the happy condition of his country, cheered the last 
 hours of Andrew Jackson, who departed this life in the tranquil hope of 
 a blessed immortality. His death was happy, as his life had been emi¬ 
 nently useful. He had an unfaltering confidence in the virtue and 
 capacity of the people, and in the permanence of that free goveriimeiil 
 which he had largely contributed to establish and defend. His great 
 deeds had secured to him the affections of his fellow-citizens, and it was 
 his happiness to witness the growth and glory of his country which he 
 loved so well. He departed amidst the benedictions of millions of free¬ 
 men. The nation paid its.tribute to his memory at his tomb. Coming 
 generations will learn from his example the love of country and the rights 
 of man. In his language on a similar occasion to the present, “I now 
 commend you, fellow-citizens, to the guidance of Almighty God, with a 
 full reliince on His merciful providence for the maintenance of our free 
 institutions; and with an earnest supplication, that whatever errors it 
 may be my lot to commit in discharging the arduous duties which have 
 devolved on me, will find a remedy in the harmony and wisdom of your 
 counsels.” 
 
 JAMES K. POLK. 
 
 Washington, December 2,1846, 
 
31 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE BRITISH MINISTER IN RELATION TO 
 OREGON. 
 
 List of ■papers. 
 
 Mr. Pox to Mr. Webster, (with enclosure,) 15th November, 184iJ. 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, 25th November, 1842. 
 
 Mr. Pakenhain to Mr. Upshur, 24th February, 1844. 
 
 Mr. Upshur to Mr. Pakenhatn, 2Bth February, 1844. 
 
 Mr. Pakenhain to Mr. Calhoun, 22d July, 1844. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun to Mr. Pakenhani, 22(1 August, 18)4. 
 
 Mr. Pakenham to Mr. Calhoun, 22d August, 1844. 
 
 Protocols. 
 
 American Statement, (marked A,) 3d September, 1844. 
 
 British Statement, (D,) 12th September, 1844. 
 
 American Statement, (B.) 2Uth September, 1844. 
 
 Mr. Pakenham to Mr. Calhoun, 15th January, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun to Mr. Pakenham, 21st January, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan to Mr.' Pakenham, (J. B.) I2th July, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Pakenham to Mr. Buchanan, (R. P.) 29th July, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Pakenham, (J. B. 2) 30th August, 1845, 
 
Mr. Pox to Mr. Webster. 
 
 [U 
 
 Washington, Noccnibtr 16, 1842. 
 
 Sir: With refereiico (o onr recent convcrsaiioii upon the qne.slioii of ibc 
 Oregon or norlhwcsiern boundary, when ! conveyed to you ihe desire of 
 her miijpsly’s government tliat inslructions shonid, at an early period, he 
 addressed to tlie United States’ minister in London, empowering him to 
 treat witli such person as may be appointed by her majesty on the part of 
 Great Britain, for a lintd settlement of that question, I have iic-.w the honor 
 to enclose to yon the extract of a despatch addressed to me upon the sttb- 
 ject by the Earl of Aberdeen, in which the wishes of her majesty’s govern¬ 
 ment are fully and satisfactorily set forth. 1 feel persuaded that the great 
 importance of the matter at issue, and the friendly and conciliatory manner 
 of Lord Aberdeen’s proposal, will induce the President of the United S'ates 
 to bestow thereupon his early and serious attention. 
 
 I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you Ihe assurance of my dis¬ 
 tinguished consideration. 
 
 H. S. FOX. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, tj'c. rj'c. ^'■c. 
 
 iEndosure.-Extraci.] 
 
 Foreign Office, October 18, 1S42. 
 
 Sir; The ratifications of the treaty, concluded on the 9ih of August 
 between Great Britain and the United States, were exchanged by me, on the 
 13th instant, with the minister of the United States accredited to the court 
 of her majesty. 
 
 The more importtint question of the disputed boundary between her 
 majesty’s- North Americati provinces and the United Slates being thus 
 settled, and the feeling.s which have been mutually produced in the people 
 of both countries by this settlement being evidently favorable, and indica¬ 
 tive of a general desire to continue on the best footing with each other, it 
 has appeared to her majesty’s government that both parlies would act 
 wisely in availing themselves of so auspicious a moment to endeavor to 
 bring to a settlement the only remaining subject of territorial difference, 
 which, although not so hazardous as that of the northeastern boundary, is, 
 iievortholess, even at this moment, not without risk to the good understaiKl- 
 ing holweon the two eountrios, and may, in course of time, be attended 
 with the same description of danger to their mutual peace as the question 
 which has recently been adjusted. I speak of the line of boundary west 
 of the Uocky inouiitains. 
 
 You are aware that Lord Ashburton was furnished w-ilh .specific and de¬ 
 tailed instructions, with re.spect to the treatment of this point of ditforence 
 between the two governments, in the general negotiations with which he 
 was iutriistcd, aturwhicli he has brouglit to a satisfactory issue. 
 
 For reasons which it is not necessary hero to state at length, lliat point, 
 after having been made the subject of conference with the American Secre¬ 
 tary of State, was not further pressed, The main ground alligeil by his lord- 
 
33 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 ship for abstaining from proposing to carry on the discussion with respect 
 to the question of the northwest boundary, was the apprehension, lest, by 
 so doing, the settlement of the far more imporlatit matter of the northeastern 
 tioundary should he impeded, or e.xposed to the Imzard of failure. 
 
 This sronnd of apprehension now no longer e.xists: and her majesty's 
 government, therefore, being anxious to endravor to remove, so far as de¬ 
 pends on them, all cause, however remote, of even contingent risk to the 
 good understanding now so liappily lestored between two countries which 
 ought never to be at variance with eacli other, have determined to propose 
 to the government of the United Stales to meet them in an endeavor to 
 adjust by treaty the unsettled question of honndary west of the Rocky 
 mountains. 
 
 On the receipt of this despatch, therefore, I have to desire that you will 
 propose to Mr. Webster to move the President to furnish the United Stales’ 
 minister at this court with such instruciioiis as will enable him to enter 
 upon the negotiation of this malter wiih sncii person as may be appointed 
 by her majesty for tliat object; and you will assure him, at the .same time, 
 that we are prepared to proceed to ihe consideraiion of it iii a perfect spirit 
 of fairness, and to adjust it on a basis of equitable compromise. 
 
 ! am, with great truth and regard, sir, your most obedient, humble ser- 
 
 ABERDEEN, 
 
 H. S. Fox, Esq. ^x. <^x. 
 
 Mr. JVehler to Mr. Fox. 
 
 Drpartmekt of State, 
 Washington, Noixmbtr 25,1842. 
 
 Sir; I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your n*te of the 
 loth instant, upon the cjuestion of the Oregon or northwestern boundary, 
 with an extract of a despatch recently addro.ssed lo you on the subject by 
 the Earl of Aberdeen, e.xplanatory of the wishes of her majesty’s govern- 
 raent—both of which I laid before the President afetv days afterwards. 
 
 He directed me to say that he concurred euiirely in the expediency of 
 making the question respecting the Oregon territory a snl jcct of immediate 
 attention and negotiation between the two governments. He had already 
 formed llie purpose of expressing this opinion in his mes.sage to Congress: 
 and, at no distant day, a communication will be made lo the minister of 
 the United States in London. 
 
 1 pray you to accept the renewed assurance of my distinguished consid¬ 
 eration. 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 H. S. .Fox, Esq. t^-c. iS,x. tfv;. . 
 
 Mr. Pakenhamto Mr. Uj)shur. 
 
 Wasiii.xgton, February 24, 1844. 
 
 Among the matters at present under the consideration of the two gov- 
 
34 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 et 1 ^ 1 ere is none res]x:clin 2 : which the British government are more 
 
 anxious to come to an early and satisl'actory arrangement with the govern¬ 
 ment of the United Slates than that relating to the boundaries of the Ore¬ 
 gon or Oolumbia territory. 
 
 The undersigned, her majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister pleni¬ 
 potentiary, has' accordingly been instructed to lose no time in entering 
 into communication with the Secretary of State of tho United Stales upon 
 this subject. 
 
 In fidfilment, then, of the commands of his government, the undersigned 
 nas the honor to acquaint Mr. Upshur that he will be ready to confer with 
 him, with a view to ulterior negotiation on the subject in question, when¬ 
 soever it shall suit Mr. Upshur’s convenience. 
 
 The undersigned is happy in taking advantage of this opportunity to 
 ofler to Mr. Upshur the assurance of his high consideration. 
 
 R. PAKElNHAM. 
 
 Hon. Abkl P. Upshur, ( fc . fyc . 
 
 Mr. Upshur to Mr. Pukenham, 
 
 UKPARTilK.NT OF St.-ITE. 
 
 Wnshiu^lon, Febnutry 20, 1344. 
 
 The undersigned. Secretary of State of tho United Slates, has the honor 
 to acknowledge the receipt of the note dated the 24th instant, from Mr. 
 Pakenham, her Britannic majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister 
 plenipotentiary, in which he slates that he will be ready to confer with the 
 undersigned, with a view to ulterior negotiation on the subject of the 
 boundaries of the Oregon or Columbia territory, whensoever it shall suit 
 his convenience. 
 
 In reply, the under.signcd has the honor to inform Mr. Pakenham that he 
 will receive him for that purpose, at tho Department of State, to morrow at 
 11 o’clock, a. m. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself with pleasure of the occasion to offer to 
 Mr. Pakenham assuiances of his distinguished consideration. 
 
 A. P. UPSHUR. 
 
 PiicnARi) Pakenh.im, Esq. ij’c. ^c. 
 
 Mr. Pakenham to Mr. CaUwun. 
 
 Wa.shingtox, .July 22,1844. 
 
 Sir : la the archives of the Department of State will be found a note 
 which 1 had the honor to address, on the 24th February last, to the late 
 Mr. Upshur, expressing the de.sire of her majesty’s government to conclude 
 with the government of the United States a satisfactory arrangement re¬ 
 specting the boundary of the Oregon or Columbia territory. 
 
 Tire lamented death of Mr. Upshur, which occurred within a few days 
 after the date of that note, the interval which took place between that event 
 and the airpointment of a successor, and the urgency and importance of 
 various matters which offered themselves to your attention immediately 
 rfter your accession to office, sufficiently explain why it has not hitherto 
 
35 [ 1 ] 
 
 beeia in liie power of your government, sir, to attend to tlie important mat¬ 
 ter to which I refer. 
 
 But the session of Congress having been brought to a close, and the pre¬ 
 sent being the season of the year when the least public business is usually 
 transacted, it occurs to me that you may now feel at lei.siire to proceed to 
 the consideration of that subject. At all events, it becomes my duty to 
 recall it to your recollection, and to repeat the earnest desire of her mtijesty’s 
 government, that a question on which so much interest is felt in both coun¬ 
 tries should be disposed of at the earliest moment consistent with the con¬ 
 venience of the government of the United States. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient ser¬ 
 vant, 
 
 R. PAKENHAM. 
 
 Hon. John C. Calhoun, ij*c. ^'c. 
 
 M>\ CaUiouH to Mr. Pakenham. 
 
 Department ok State, 
 
 Washington, August 23, 1S41 
 
 Sir: The various subjects which necessarily claimed my attention, on 
 entering on the duties of ray office, have heretofore, as you justly suppose 
 in your note of the 22d of July last, prevented me from appointing a time 
 to confer with you, and enter on the negotiation in reference to the Oregon 
 territory. 
 
 Tlic.se have, at length, been despatched ; and, in reply to the note which 
 you did me the honor to address to me of the dale above mentioned. I have 
 to inform you that I am now ready to enter on the negotiation, and for that 
 purpose propose a conference to-morrow at one o’clock, p. m., at the De¬ 
 partment of Slate, if perfectly convenient to you; but, if not, at any other 
 which it may suit your convenience to appoint. 
 
 The government of the United Slates participates in the anxious desire 
 of that of Great Britain, that the subject may be early and saiisfliciorily ar¬ 
 ranged. 
 
 ] have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, vour obedient .servant, 
 'J. U. CALHOUN. 
 
 TheRight Hon. R. Pakenham, ^'c. i-j'c. ij'c- 
 
 Mr. Pakenham to Mr. Calhoun. 
 
 Washington, August 22, 1844. 
 
 Sir : I have had the honor to receive your note of this morning’s date, 
 in which you signify your readiness to enter on the negotiation in refer¬ 
 ence to the Oregon territory, proposing to me to meet you in conference or 
 that subject to morrow at one o’clock. 
 
 In reply, I have the honor to acquaint you that I shall have, great plea¬ 
 sure in waiting on you, at the Department of State, at the hour proposed. 
 
 Be pleased to accept the assurance of my distinguished consideration. 
 
 B,. PAKHNHAM. 
 
 Hon. John C. Calhoun, 
 
[ 1 ] 
 
 36 
 
 PROTOCOLS, 
 
 On the 23(1 of Aiignsl, 18 !4, a conference vras held, by appointment, at 
 tlie office of tilt: Secreiary of Slate, in the city of \Vasliiiit;toii. between 
 the Hon. John C. Cnlbotiii, Secretary of State of the Uniied States, and ilie 
 right honorable Richard Pakenhani, her Britannic majesty’s envoy extra¬ 
 ordinary and iniiiister plenipotentiary, both duly authorized by their re¬ 
 spective governments to treat of the respective claims of the two conntries 
 to the Oregon lerrilory, with the view to establish a permanent boundary 
 between the two countries westward of the Rocky mountains to the Pacific 
 ocean. 
 
 The conference was opened by assurances on both sides of the desire of 
 their respective governments to approach the question with an earnest de¬ 
 sire, and in the spirit of compromise, to effect an adjustment consistent will; 
 the honor and just interests of either party. The plenipoleniiaries then 
 proceeded to ex.miine ihc actual state of the question as it slood at the last 
 unsuccessful attempt to adjust it. 
 
 This done, the American plenipotentiary desired to receive from the 
 British plenipotentiary any fresh propo.snl he might be instructed to ofler 
 on the part of his government towards effecting an adjustmeni. 
 
 Tlie British plenipotentiary said he would be ready to olier such a pro¬ 
 posal at their next conference, hoping that the American plenipotentiary 
 Would be ready to present a proposal on the part of his government. The 
 conference adjourned to meet on Monday the 26th instant. 
 
 J. C. CALHOUN. 
 
 R. PAKHNHAM. 
 
 On the 26ih of August, IS'M, the Second Conference was heldbetwceti 
 the respective plenipotentiaries, at the office of the Secretary of State. 
 
 The British plenipotentiary ofl'ered a paper containing a proposal for 
 adjusting the conilicting claims of the two countries. The Atmerican 
 plenipotentiary declined the proposal. Some remarks followed in reference 
 to the claims of the two conntries to the territory, when it became appa¬ 
 rent that a more full uuderstanding of their respective views in reference to 
 them was necessary at this stage, in order to facilitale future proceedings. 
 It Was accordingly agnred that writlen statements, containing their view;’, 
 should be presented before any further attempt should be made to adjust 
 them. 
 
 It was also agreed that the American plenipotentiary shonld present a 
 statement at the next conference, and that he should inform the British 
 plenipotentiary when he was prepared to hold it. 
 
 J. C. CALHOUN. 
 
 R. PAKHNHAM. 
 
 Proposal (fered bp the British Plenipotentiary at the second conference. 
 
 Whereas the proposals made on both sides, in the course of tlie last ne¬ 
 gotiation, had been mutually declined, her majasty’s government were 
 prepared, in addition to what had alreaiiy been offered on the part of Great 
 Bril»iu,* and in proof of thoir earnest desire to arrive at an arrangement 
 suitable to the intoresis and wishes of both parties, to undertake to make 
 
 'The precise iiiituvc end tenna ef :'n': olVor on the p.vl of (ji-cal Britiiin, here referred lo, arc 
 
37 
 
 11 ] 
 
 free to the Untied Slates any port or porls wliich the United States’ goverii- 
 ineni might desire, either on the main land or on Vancouver’s island, south 
 of latitude 49^. 
 
 R. P. 
 
 On the 2d of September, 1S44, the Third Conference was held at the office 
 of the Secretary of Slate, according to appointment. The American pleni¬ 
 potentiary presented a written statement of his views of the claims of the 
 United Stales to the portion of the territory drained by t!>e waters of the 
 Columbia river, marked A. and containing his reasons for declining to 
 accept the proposal offered by the Rrilish plenipotentiary at their second 
 conference. 
 
 J. C. CALHOUN. 
 
 R. PAKEiNHAM. 
 
 
 
 United Sunt. 
 
 De Fuca’s 
 
 drawn from Cape Flattery, along the southern s!k 
 northwestern e.xtremity oi'Admiralty inlet; from 
 
 the said inlet; from thence along the eastern .shore 
 same; from thence direct to the soulliern pcnni tii 
 
 of the Pacific to Cape Flattery, as heforc m 
 
 “They were farther willing to stipalate 
 
 entrance of the river Colunibia, or unon tije banlis ( 
 
 lean inlet to Point Wilson, at the 
 
 i extremity of 
 to the .southern extremity of the 
 jor; from thence along the shore 
 
 iild at any lime be erected at the 
 
 that m%hi be calculated to impede 
 
 either pa-ty.” 
 
[i] 
 
 38 
 
 On the 12th of September, IS44, the Fourth Conference was held at the 
 office of the Secretary of State, when the British plenipotentiary presented 
 his statement, marked D, counter to that of the American plenipotentiary, 
 marked A, presented at the preceding conference. 
 
 .T. C. GAl.HOUN. 
 
 K. PAKBNHAM. 
 
 At the F’ifth Conference, held at the office of the Secretary of State on the 
 2()th of September, the American plenipotentiary delivered to the British 
 plenipotentiary a statement, marked B, in rejoinder to his counter state¬ 
 ment, marked D. 
 
 J. C. CALHOUN. 
 
 H. PAKENHAM. 
 
 'I'he Sixth Conference was held on the 24th of September, when the 
 Piritisli plenipotentiary .stated that ho had read with due atieniion the state¬ 
 ment rnarlced B, presented by the American plenipotentiary at the last con¬ 
 ference ; Inn that it had not weakened the impression previonsiy enter¬ 
 tained hy him with regard to the claims and rights ol Groat Britain, as 
 cxplahiod ill tire paper lately presented by him, marked D. That, reserving 
 for a future occasion such observations as lie might wisii to present by way 
 of cxphtnatioiiS; in reply to the statement last presented hy tiro American 
 plcnipoicntiary, iie was for tlio present obliged to declare, witli reference to 
 the coiicliidiiig part of that siateinent, liiat he did not fcei antiiorized to 
 enter into discussion respecting tlie territory north ofthe49ili parallel of 
 latitude, wiiidi was niideistnod hy tlie British .goveriimaiit lo form tiie basis 
 I Ife as the line, of tile Ooluinbia 
 jnrmed tliat on tlie side of (irea.r Britain. That tlic proposal which lie liad 
 presented was ollbred hy Great Britain as an luinDrable compromise of tlie 
 ckiims and pretensions of both parties, and lhat it would, of course, bo 
 understood as having been made subject to the condition recorded in the 
 protocol of tlie tliird conlcrence iield between the rosoirctive picnipoten- 
 tiarifs in Loudon in Uecember, ISSb.- 
 
 J. C. CALHOUN. 
 
 R. BAEEKHAM. 
 
 The Seventh Conference was held at the Department of State, on the ItUli 
 of July, 1845, between the Hon. .lames Bnchariati, Secretary of State, the 
 American plenipotentiary, and tlie riglit lioriornbie Richard Ihikeiihara, the 
 British plenipotentiary, wlien the pending negotiation respecting tlie Oregon 
 territory was resnraed. The Amaricaii pleiiipoteiuiary presented lo the 
 British plenipoleutiavy a statement, marked .1. B, beniing date 12lh July, 
 1845, made in compliance witit the request of the latter, cnlained in his 
 statement marked 1), that the American plenipotentiary would propose an 
 arrangement for an equitable adjustment of the qnesiion ; and also define 
 
 • The conililion here relerrcd lo is the proksi coiiiaiiicil in ihe i? csiraet from llic 
 
 protoed of ine IMri miferena, hehl on llio tsiot December, lr-e«: “The Rrilish plenipolen- 
 Tiiiries * * * ’ ♦ protC'teil Beai;i-si ihe dffer of concR.-^siem so ninde being 
 
 1824, and declared iha't the ofi'er now made was considered by the lirit'sh' government as not 
 called for by any ju.si comparison ol' the trroiinds of those claims, and of the counter claim of 
 the United States; out niiner as a saennee wmcii me t>ruisii government iiaa consented to 
 tnoice, with a riew to obriaie all evils of future difference in respect to the territory west of the 
 -Uocky moumaiDB.” 
 
so [ 1 ] 
 
 the nature and extent of tlie claims of the United States to the territory- 
 north of the valley of the Columbia. 
 
 JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 
 R. PAKENHAM. 
 
 Washisgton, Hcplember 3, 1S44. 
 
 The undersigned, American plenipotentiary, declines the proposal of the 
 British plenipoientiary on the ground that it would have the effect of re¬ 
 stricting the possessions of the United Stales to limits far more circum¬ 
 scribed than their claitits clearly entitle them to. It proposes to limit their 
 northern boundary by a line drawn from the Rocky mountains along the 
 49th parallel of latitude to the. mirtheastenimost branch of the Columbia 
 river, and thence down the middle of that river to the sea, giving to Great 
 Britain all the country noilli.and tolhe United Stalesall south,of that line, 
 except a detached territory extending on t!ic Pacific and the Straits of Fnca, 
 from Bulfinch's harbor to Hond’.s canal; to which it is proposi’d, in addi¬ 
 tion, to make free to the United States any port which tlio United States’ 
 government might desire, either on the main land or on Vancouver’s island, 
 south of latitude 49 degrees. 
 
 By turning to the map hereto antie.xed, and on which the proposed 
 boundary is marked in pencii. it will ho seei i ( mat Britain 
 
 almost llin entire region on its north side, drained hy the Columbia river, 
 lying on its northern hank. It is not deemed necessary to state, at large, 
 tiio claims of tiie United Stattes to thi.s territory, and the grnnnds on which 
 they rest, in order to make good iho assertion tliat it restricts the possessions 
 of the United Slates within narrower boim-ds than they arc clearly entitled 
 to. It will ho siifiicienl for this purpose, to show tliat they are fairly enti¬ 
 
 tled to the entire region drained by the rivei ishment of 
 
 this point, the undersigned proposes accordingly in limit his remarks at 
 present. 
 
 Our claims to the portion of the territory drained by Iho Columbia river 
 may he divided into those we have in our own proper right, and tliose we 
 have derived from Franco tmd Spain. We ground the former, as against 
 Great Britain, on priority of discovery and priority of exploration and set¬ 
 tlement. Wc re.st our claim to discovery, as against her. on that of Captain 
 Gray, a citizen of the United Slates, who, in liic ship Columbia, of Boston, 
 passed its bar and anchored in tlie river, ten miles above its month, on the 
 11th of May, 179'2; and who, afterwards, sailed tip the river twelve or fif¬ 
 teen miles, and left it on the 2llth of the same month, calling it '■'Colum¬ 
 bia,” after his ship ; which name it still retains. 
 
 On these facts our claim to the discovery and entrance into the river rests. 
 They are too well attested to be controverted. But they have been opposed 
 hy the alleged discoveries of Mearcs and Vancouver. It is (rue that the 
 former explored a portion of the coast through which the Columbia flows 
 into the ocean, in 1788, (five years before Captain Gray crossed the bar and 
 anchored in the river,) in order to .ascertain whether the river, as laid down 
 in the Spanish charts and called the St. Roc.exisicdor not; but it is equally 
 true that he did not even discover it. On the contrary, he expressly de¬ 
 clares in his account of the voyage, as the result of his observations, that 
 “ VK can now safely assert that there is no such river as that of the St. 
 
40 
 
 [1] 
 
 Roc, as laid down in the Spanish charts]” and, as if to perpetuate his dis¬ 
 appointment, he called the promontory lying north of the inlet where he 
 expected to discover it. Cape Disap point incut, and the inlet itself Decep¬ 
 tion bay. It is also true that Vancouver, in April, 1792, explored the same 
 coast; but it is iro less so that he failed to discover the river, of which his 
 own journal fnruishes the most conclusive evidence, as well as his strong 
 conviction that no such river existed. So strong was it indeed, that, when 
 he fell in with Captain Gray shortly afterwards, and was informed by him 
 that he had been off the mouth of a river in latitude 4.B degrees 10 minutes, 
 whose outlet was so strong ns to prevent his entering, he remained still in- 
 creduloiiii, and strongly expressed himself to that effect in his journal. It 
 was shortly after this interview that Captain Gray again visited its mouth, 
 crossed its bar, and sailed up the river as has been stated. After he left it 
 he visited Nootka Sound, where he communicated Ins discoveries to Q,ua- 
 dra,the Spanish commandant at that place, and gave him a chart and de¬ 
 scription of the mouth of the river. After his departure, Vancouver arrived 
 there in September, when he was informed of the discoveries of Captain 
 Gray, and obtained from Quadra copies of the chart he had left with him. 
 In consequence of the information thus obtained, he was induced to visit 
 again that part of the coast. It was during this visit that he entered the 
 river on the 20th of October and made his survey. 
 
 From these facts it is manifest that the alleged discoveries of Meares and 
 Vancouver cannot in the slightest degree shake the claim of Captain Gray ■ 
 to priority of discovery. Indeed, so conclusive is the evidence in his fa-- 
 vor, that it has been attempted to evade our claim on the novel and wholly 
 untenable ground that his discovery was made not in a national, but pri¬ 
 vate vessel. Such and so incontestable is the evidence of our claim, as 
 against Great Britain, from priority of discovery, as to the mouth of tlie 
 river, crossing its bar, entering it, and sailing up its stream, on the voyage 
 of Captain Gray alone, without taking into consideration the prior discov¬ 
 ery of the Spanish navigator, Heceta, which will be more particularly refer¬ 
 red to hereafter. 
 
 Nor is the evidence of the priority of our discovery of the head branch¬ 
 es of the river and its exploration less conclusive. Before the treaty was 
 ratified by which we acquired Louisiana, in ISOS, an expedition was plan¬ 
 ned, at the head of which were placed Meriwether Lewis and William Clarke, 
 to explore the river Missouri and its principal branches to their sources, and 
 then to seek and trace to its termination in the Pacific some stream, 
 
 “ whether the Columbia, the Oregon, the Colorado, or any other which 
 might offer the most direct and practicable water communication across 
 the continent for the purpose of commerce.” The party began to ascend 
 the Missouri in May, 1804, and in the summer of 1805 reached the head 
 waters of the Columbia river. After crossing many of the streams falling 
 into it, they reached the Kooskooskee, in latitude 43° 34'—descended that 
 to the principal southern branch, which they called Lewis’s—followed that 
 to its junction with the great northern branch, which they called Clarke;. 
 and thence descended to the mouth of the river, where they landed and en¬ 
 camped, on the north side, on Cape Disappointment, and wintered. The 
 next spring they commenced their return, and continued their exploration 
 up the river, noting its various branches, and tracing some of the princi¬ 
 pal, and finally arrived at St. Louis in September, 1806, after an absence of- 
 two years and four months. 
 
41 [ 1 ] 
 
 It was this important expedition which brought to the knowledge of the 
 world this great river—the greatest by far on the western side of this conti¬ 
 nent—with its numerous branches, and the vast regions through which it 
 flows, above the points to which Gray and Vancouver had ascended. It 
 took place many years before it was visited and explored by any subject of 
 Great Britain, or of any other civilized nation, so far as we are informed. 
 It as clearly entitles ns to the claim of priority of discovery as to its head 
 branches and the exploration of the river and region through which it passes, 
 as the voyages of Captain Gray and tire Spanish navigator, Heceta, entitle 
 us to priority in reference to its mouth and the entrance into its channel. 
 
 Nor is our priority of settlement less certain. Establishments were formed 
 by American citizens on the Columbia as early as 1809 and 1810. In the 
 latter year, a company was formed in New York, at the head of which was 
 John Jacob Astor, a wealthy merchant of that city, the object of which was 
 to form a regular chain of establishments on the Columbia river and the 
 contiguous coasts of the Pacific for commercial purposes. Early in the 
 spring of 1811, they made their first establishment on the south side of the 
 river, a few miles above Point George, where they were visited, in July fol¬ 
 lowing, by Mr. Thompson, a surveyor and astronomer of the Northwest 
 company, and his party. They had been sent out by that company to fore¬ 
 stall the American company in occupying the mouth of the river, but found 
 themselves defeated in their object. The American company formed two 
 other connected establishments higher up the river: one at the confluence 
 of the Olceriegati with the north branch of the Columbia, about six hundred 
 miles above its mouth, and the other on the Spokan, a stream falling into 
 the north branch, some fifty miles above. These posts passed into the pos¬ 
 session of Great Britain during the war which was declared the next year: 
 but it was provided by the first article of the treaty of Ghent, which termi¬ 
 nated it, that “ all terrilories, f laces, and fossessions whatever, taken by either 
 party from the other during the loar, or which may be taken after the sign¬ 
 ing of the treaty, excepting the islands hereafter mentioned, [in the bay of 
 Fnndy,) shall be restored without delay.” Under this provision, which 
 embraces all the establishments of the American company on the Columbia, 
 Astoria was formally restored on the (5th of October, 1818, by agents duly 
 authorized on the part of the British government to restore the possession, 
 and to an agent duly authorized on the part of the government of the Uni¬ 
 ted States to receive it, which placed our possession where it was before it 
 passed into the hands of British subjects. 
 
 Such are the facts on which we rest our claims to priority of discovery 
 and priority of exploration and settlement, as against Great Britain, to the 
 region drained by the Columbia river. So much for the claims we have 
 in our own proper right to that region. 
 
 To these, we have added the claims of France and Spain. The former, 
 we obtained by the treaty of Louisiana, ratified in 18U3; and the latter, by 
 the treaty of Florida, ratified in 1819. By the former, we acquired all the 
 rights which b'rance had to Louisiana ‘-to the extent it now has f 1893,) in 
 the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such 
 as it should be after the treaties subseqAently entered into by Spain and 
 other States.” By the latter, his Catholic majesty “ ceded to the United 
 States all his rights, claims, and pretensions” to the country lying west of 
 the Rocky mountains, and north of a line drawn on the 42d parallel of 
 latitude, from a point on the south bank of the Arkansas, in that parallel. 
 
42 
 
 [1] 
 
 to the South sea; that is, to the whole region claimed by Spain west of 
 those mountains, and north of that line. 
 
 The cession of Louisiana gave ns undisputed title west of the Missis¬ 
 sippi, extending to the summit of the Rocky mountains, and stretching 
 south between that river and those mountains to the possessions of Spain, 
 the line between which and ours was afterwards determined by the treaty 
 of Florida. It also added much to the strength of our title to the region 
 beyond the Rocky mountains, by restoring to us the important link of con¬ 
 tinuity westward to the Pacific, which had been surrendered by the treaty 
 of 1763, as will be hereafter shown. 
 
 That continuity furnishes a just foundation for a claim of territory, in 
 connexion with those of discovery and occupation, would seem unquestion¬ 
 able. Ills admitted by all, that neither of them is limited by the precise 
 spot discovered or occupied. It is evident that, in order to make either 
 available, it mtist extend at least some distance beyond that actually dis¬ 
 covered or occupied; but how far, us an abstract question, is a tnatter of 
 uncertainty. It is subject, in each case, to be influenced by a variety of 
 considerations. In the case of an island, it has been usually maintained in 
 practice to extend the claim of discovery or occitpaticy to the whole; so 
 likewise in the case of a river, it has been usual to extend them to the en¬ 
 tire region drained by it, more especially in ca.ses of a discovery and settle¬ 
 ment at the mouth ; and emphatically so when accompanied by exploration 
 of the river and region through which it flows. Such, it is believed, may 
 be affirmed to be the opinion and practice in stich cases since the di.scovery 
 of this coittinent. How far the claim of continuity may extend in other 
 cases is less perfectly defined, and can be settled only by reference to the 
 circumstances attending each. When this continenf was first discovered, 
 Spain claimed the whole, in virtue of the grant of the Pope ; but a claim 
 so extravagant and unreasonable was not acquiesced in by other countries, 
 and could not be long mniutained. Other nations, especially Kuglaiidand 
 France, at an early period, contested her claim. They fitted out voyages 
 of discovery, and made settlements on the eastern coasts of North America. 
 They claimed for their settlements usually specific limits along the coasts or 
 bays on which they were formed; and, generally, a region of corresponding 
 width, extending across the entire continent to the Pacific ocean. Such 
 was the character of the limits assigned by Kngland, in the charters which 
 she granted to her former colonies, now the United States, when there were 
 no special reasons for varying from it. 
 
 How strong she regarded her claim to the region conveyed by these char¬ 
 ters, and extending westward of her setllemeiils, the war between her and 
 France, which was terminated by the treaty of Paris, in 17(53, furnishes a 
 striking illustration. That great’contest, which ended so gloriously for 
 England, and effected so great and dur-able a change on this continent, com¬ 
 menced in a conflict between her claims and those of France, resting on 
 her side on this very right of continuity, extending westward from her set¬ 
 tlements to the Pacific ocean; and, on the part of France, on the same 
 right, but extending to the region drained by the Mississippi and its waters, 
 on the ground of settlement and exploration. Their respective claims, 
 which led to the war, first clashed on the river Ohio, the waters of which 
 the colonial charters, in their western extension, covered, but which France 
 had been unquestionably the first to settle and explore. If the relative 
 strength of these different claims may be tested by the result of that re- 
 
43 
 
 [1] 
 
 markable contesf, that of coiitiniiily westward must Iw pronounced to be 
 the stronger of the two. I'lngland has had at least the advantage of the 
 result, and would seem to be foreclosed against contesting the principle, 
 particularly as against us, who contributed so much to that result, and on 
 wtiom that contest and her example and pretensions, from the first settle¬ 
 ment of our countrjr, have contributed to impress it so deeply and indelibly. 
 
 But the treaty of 1703, which terminated that memorable and eventful 
 struggle, yielded, as has been stated, the claims and all the chartered rights 
 of the colonics beyond the Mississippi. The seventh article establishes 
 that river as the permanent boundary between the possessions of Great 
 Britain and France on this continent. So ranch ns relates to the subject is 
 in the following words: ‘■'■The covjhies between the dominions of his 
 Britannic majesty in that yarl of the world (the continent rf America,} 
 shall hs fixed irrevocably by a line drawn along the middle of the river 
 Mississippi, from, its soarce to the river Iberville, and from thence by a 
 line drawn along the middle of this river and the lakes Maw-epas and 
 Bontchartrain to the sea.}’ &-C. 
 
 This important slipnlatinn, which thus establishes the Mississippi as the 
 line “ fixed irrevocably" between the dominions of the two countries on this 
 continent, in effect extinguishes in favor of France whatever claim Great 
 Britain may liave had to the region lying west of the Mississippi. It of 
 course could not affect tlic rights of Spain, the onlyother nation which had 
 any pretence ofclnirii west of that river; hut it prevented the light of con¬ 
 tinuity, previously claimed by Great Britain, from extending beyond it, and 
 transferred it to France. 'I’lio treaty of Louisiana restored and vested in 
 the United Slates all the claims acquired by France tmd surrendered by 
 Great Britain under the provisions of that treaty, to the comitry west of 
 the Mississippi, and among others the one in question. Certain it is, that 
 i^'rance had the same right of coiitinnily, in virtue of her possession of 
 Louisiana, and the extinguishment of the right of England, by the treaty of 
 17(53, to the whole comilry west of the Rocky raontita'ins, and lying west of 
 Loiiisiaiia, as against Spain, which England Itad to the country westward 
 of the Alleghany iiiountains, as againf.r France—witli this ditierencc. that 
 Spain had nothing to oppose to the claim of France, at the lime, but the 
 right of discovery, and even that England has since denied, while Franco 
 Itad opposed to the right of England, in her case, that of discovery, explo¬ 
 ration, and settlement. It is therelore not at all surprising that France 
 should claim the country west of the Rocky mountains, (as may be iii.^erred 
 from her maps,) on the same principle that Great Britain had claimed and 
 dispossessed tier of liie regions west of the Alleglimiy; or that the United 
 States, as soon as tliey had acquired the rights of France, should assert the 
 same claim, and lake measures immediately after to explore it, with a view 
 <0 occupation and settlement. But since then we have strengthened our 
 title by adding to our own pro|)er claims and those of France the claims 
 also of’Spain, by the treaty of I'lorida, as has been stated. 
 
 The claims which we have acquired from her between the Rocky moun¬ 
 tains and the Pacific, rest on her priority of discovery. Numerous voyages 
 of discovery, commencing witli that of Maldonado in 1528, and ending 
 with that under Galinno and Valdes in 1792, were undertaken by her an- 
 tliority along the northwestern coast of North America. That they discov¬ 
 ered and explored not only the entire coast of what is now called the Ore¬ 
 gon territory, but still furtfier north, are facts too well established to ba 
 
44 
 
 [1] 
 
 controverted at this day. The voyages which they performed v/iil accord¬ 
 ingly be passed over at present without being particularly alluded to, with 
 the exception of that of Hecela. His discovery of the mouth of the Uoluni- 
 bia river has been already referred to. It was made on the 15th of August, 
 1775, many years anterior to the voyages of Meares and Vancouver, and 
 was prior to Cook’s, who did not reach the northwestern coast until 1778. 
 The claims it gave to Spain of priority of discovery were transferred to us, 
 with all others belonging to her, by the treaty of Florida; which, added to 
 the discoveries of Captain Gray, places our right to the discovery of the 
 mouth and entrance into the inlet and river beyond all controversy. 
 
 It has been objected that we claim under various and conflicting titles, 
 which mutually destroy each other. Such might indeed be the fact, while 
 they were held by different parties; but since we have rightfully acquired 
 both those of Spain and France, and concentrated the whole in our hands, 
 they mutually blend with each other, and form one strong and connected 
 chain of title against the ojrposing claims of all others, including Great 
 Britain. 
 
 In order to present more fully and perfectly the grounds on which our 
 claim to the region in question rests, it will now be necessary to turn back 
 to the time wheit Astoria was restored to us under the provisions of the 
 treaty of Ghent, and to trace what has since occurred between the two coun¬ 
 tries in reference to the territory, and inquire whether their respective claims 
 have been affected by the settlements since made in the territory by Great 
 Britain, or the occurrences which have since taken place. 
 
 The restoration of Astoria took place under the provisions of the treaty 
 of Ghent, on the 6th day of October, ISIS, the effect of which was to put 
 Mr. Prevost, the agent authorized by our government to receive it, in pos¬ 
 session of the establishment, with the. right at all times to be reinstated and 
 considered the party in possession, as was explicitly admitted by Lord Cas- 
 tlereagh in the first negotiation between the two governments in reference 
 to the treaty. The words of Mr. Bush, our plenipotentiary on that occa¬ 
 sion, in his letter to Mr. Adams, then Secretary of State, of the 14th of Feb¬ 
 ruary, ISIS, reporting what passed between him and his lordship, are, 
 “ that Lord Castkreacrh admitted in the most ample extent our l ight to be 
 reinstated, and to be the party in possession while treating of the title.” 
 
 That negotiation terminated in the convention of the 20th of October, 
 ISIS—the third article of which is in the following words : 
 
 “It is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on 
 the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony mountains, shall, 
 together with its harbors, bays, ;md creeks, and the navigation of all rivers 
 within the same, be free and open, for the term of ten years from the date 
 of the signature of the present convention, to the vessels, citizens and sub¬ 
 jects of the two powers ; it being well understood that this agreement is not 
 to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high 
 contracting parlies may have to any part of the said country, nor shall it 
 bo taken to affect the claims of any other power or state to any part of the 
 said country ; the only object of the high contracting parties, in that re¬ 
 spect, being to prevent disputes and differences amongst themselves.” 
 
 The two acts—the restoration of our possession and the signature of the 
 convention—were nearly contemporaneous; the latter taking place but four¬ 
 teen days subsequently to the former. We were then, as admitted by Lord 
 Castlereagh, entitled to be considered as the party in possession, and the con- 
 
45 [ 1 ] 
 
 venlion which stipulated that the territory should be free and open for the 
 term of ten years from the date nf its sigiiatiire, to the vessels. citizei;s.aiid 
 subjects of tile two countries, wiihout prejudice to any claim which citlier 
 jiarty may have to any part of the same, ]iroferve.d and [lerpetuated all our 
 claims to the territory, including the acknowledged risht to he considered 
 the party in possession, as perfecdy, during the period of its continuance, as 
 they were the day the convention was sjgned. Of this there c.m he no 
 doubt. 
 
 After an abortive attempt to adjust the claims of the two parties to the 
 territory in 1S24, anolher negotiation was commenced in 1S2G, which ter¬ 
 minated in renewing, on the 6th of August, 1827. the third article of the 
 convention of ISlSj"prior to its expiration. It provided for the indelinite 
 extension of all the provisions of the third article of that convention, and 
 also that either party might terminate it at any time it might think fit, by 
 giving one year’s notice after the 20th of October, 1828. it took, however. 
 The precantion of providing expressly that “iiolkhig conlained in i/tin con- 
 ventioH, or in the third article of the convention of the ‘di't/i (f October, 
 1818, hereby continued in force, shall be construed to impair or in any man¬ 
 ner affect the claims which either nf the contracling parties may have to 
 any part of the conntry westward nf the Stony or Rocky mnantains.” 
 That convention is now in force, and has continued to he so since the expi¬ 
 ration of that of 1818. By the joint operation of the two, our right to 
 he considered tlie party in possession, and all the claims we had to the ter¬ 
 ritory, while in possession, are preserved in as fall vigor as they were at 
 the date of its restoration in 1818, wdthout being atfected or impaired by 
 the settlements since made by the subjects of Great Britain. 
 
 Time, indeed, so far from impairing onr claims, has greatly strengthened 
 them since that period; for, since Iheii, the treaty of Florida transferred to 
 us all the rights, claims, and pretensions of Spain to tlie whole territory, as 
 has been stated. In consequence of this, our claims to the portion drained 
 bv the Columbia river, the point now the subject of consideraiion, have 
 been miicli strengthened by giving ns ihe incontestable claim lo the discovery 
 of the mouth of the river by Heceta, above staled. But it is not in this 
 particular only that it has operated in our favor. Onr well fonnded claim, 
 grounded on continuity, has greatly strengthened during the same period, 
 by the rapid advance of our population towards the territory: its great in¬ 
 crease, especially in the valley of the Mississippi, as well as the greatly in¬ 
 creased facility of passing to the territory by more accessible routes, and 
 the far stronger and rapidly swelling tide of population that has recently 
 commenced flowing into it. 
 
 When the first convention was concluded, in ISIS, onr whole population 
 did not exceed nine millions of people. The portion of it inliabiting the 
 States in the great valley of the Mississippi was, probably, under one mil¬ 
 lion seven hundred thonsaiid, of which not more than two hundred thou¬ 
 sand were on the west side of that river. Now. our population may be 
 safely estimated at not less than nineteen millions, of which at least eiglit 
 millions inhabit the States and territories in tlie valley of the Mississippi, 
 and of which upwards of one million are in the States and territories west 
 of that river. This portion of our population is now increasing far more 
 rapidly than ever, and will, in a short time, fill the whole tier of States on its 
 we.stern bank. 
 
 To this great increase of population, especially in he valley of the Mis- 
 
46 
 
 [ n 
 
 sissippi, may be added iheincreased facility of reacliing the Oregon territory, 
 in consequence of the discovery of the remarkable pass in the Rocky moun¬ 
 tains, at the head of the La Platte. The depression is so great, and the pass 
 so smooth, that loaded wagons now travel with facility from Missouri to the 
 navigable waters of the Columbia river. These joint causes have had the 
 effect of turning the current of our pojmlation towards the territory, and an 
 emigration estimated at not less than one thousand during the last, and fif¬ 
 teen'hundred the present year, has flowed into it. The current thus com¬ 
 menced will no doubt continue to flow with increased volume hereafter. 
 There cun, then, be no doubt now that the operation of thesame causes which 
 impelled our population westward from the shores of the Atlantic across the 
 Alleghany to the valley of the Mississippi, will impel them onward with ac¬ 
 cumulating force, across the Rocky mountains, into the valley of the Colum¬ 
 bia, and that the whole region drained by it is destined to be peopled by us. 
 
 Such are our claims to that portion of the territory, and the grounds on 
 which they rest. The undersigned believes them to be well founded, and 
 trusts that the British plenipotentiary will see in them sufficient reasons 
 why he should decline his proposal. 
 
 The undersigned plenipotentiary abstains, for the present, from present¬ 
 ing the claims which the United States may have to other portions of the 
 territory. 
 
 The uudersigni'd avails himself of thi.= occ.asion to renew to the British 
 plenipotentiary assurances of his high consideration. 
 
 J. C. CALHOUN. 
 
 Right Hon. R. P.4ke.vhasi, i^’c. i^'c. 
 
 D. 
 
 September 12, 1S44. 
 
 The undersigned, British plenipotentiary, has studied with much inter¬ 
 est and attention the statement marked A, presented by the American plen¬ 
 ipotentiary, setting forth the grounds on which he declines the proposal 
 oflered by the British plenipotentiary as a compromise of tlie difficulties of 
 the Oregon question. The arrangement contemplated by that proposal 
 would, in the estimation of Ihe American plenipotentiary, have the eflectof 
 restricting the posses.sions of the United States to limits far more circum¬ 
 scribed than their claims clearly entitle them to. 
 
 The claims of the United States to the portion of territory drained 
 by the Columbia river are divided into those adduced by the United States 
 in their own proper right, and those which they have derived from France 
 and Spain. 
 
 The former, as against Great Britain, they ground on priority of discov¬ 
 ery and priority of exploration and settlement. 
 
 'I'he claim derived from France originates in the treaty of 1S03, by 
 which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, with all its rights and ap¬ 
 purtenances, as fully and in the same manner -as they had been acquired by 
 the French republic; and tlie claim derived from Spain is founded on the 
 treaty concluded with that power in the year 1819, whereby his Catholic 
 majesty ceded to the United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to 
 
47 
 
 [1] 
 
 the territories lying east and north of a certain line terminating on the Pa¬ 
 cific, in the 42d degree of north latitude. 
 
 Departing Irom the order in which these three separate claims are pre¬ 
 sented by the Americau plenipotentiary, the British plenipotentiary will 
 first beg leave to observe, with regard to the claim derived from France, 
 that he has not been able to discover any evidence tending to establish 
 the belief that Louisiana, as originally possessed by France, afterwards 
 transferred to Spain, then retroceded by Spain to Prance, and ultimately 
 ceded by the latter power to the United States, extended in a westerly di¬ 
 rection beyond the Rocky mountains. There is, on the other hatid, strong 
 reason to suppose that at the time when Louisiana was ceded to the Uni¬ 
 ted States, its acknowledged western boundary was the Rocky mountains. 
 Such appears to have been the opinion of President Jefferson, under whose 
 auspices the acquisition of Louisiana was accomplished. 
 
 In a letter written by him in August, 1803, are to be found the follow¬ 
 ing words: “ The bonndaries (of l^uisiana) which I deem not admitting 
 question, are the high lands on the western side of the Mississippi, enclos¬ 
 ing all its waters- the Missouri of course—and terminating in the line drawn 
 from the northwest point of the Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of 
 the Mississippi, as lately settled between Great Britain and the United 
 States.” 
 
 In another and more formal document, dated iu July, 1807—that is to say, 
 nearly a year after the return of Lewis and Clarke from their expedition 
 to the Pacific, and fifteen years after Gray had entered the Columbia river— 
 is reeorded Mr. Jefferson’s opinion of the impolicy of giving oflenqp to 
 Spain, by any intimation that the claims of the United States extended to 
 the Pacific; and we, have the authority of an American historian,distin¬ 
 guished for the attention and research which he has bestowed on the whole 
 subject of the Oregon territory, for concluding that the western boundaries 
 of Louisiana, as it was ceded by France to the United States, were those 
 indicated by nature—ntimely, the high lands separating the waters of the 
 Mississippi from those falling into the Pacific. 
 
 From the acquisition, then, of Louisiana, as it was received from France, 
 it seems clear that the United States can deduce no claim to territory west 
 of the Rocky mountains. But even if it were otherwise, and if France had 
 ever possessed or asserted a claim to territory west of the Rocky moun¬ 
 tains, as appertaining to the territory of Louisiana, that claim, whatever it 
 might be, was necessarily transferred to Spain when Louisiana was ceded 
 to that power in 1762, and of course became subject to the provisions of the 
 treaty between Spain and Great Britain of 179H, which effectually abroga¬ 
 ted the claim of Spain to exclusive dominion over the unoccupied parts of 
 the American continent. 
 
 To the observations of the American plenipotentiary respecting the effect 
 of continuity in furnishing a claim to territory, the undersigned has not 
 failed to pay due attention ; but he submits that what is said on this head 
 may more properly bn considered as demonstrating the greater degree of 
 interest which the United States possess, by reason of contiguity, in ac¬ 
 quiring territory in that direction, than as affecting in any way the question 
 of right. 
 
 The undersigned will endeavor to show hereafter, that, in the proposal 
 put in on the part of Great Britain, the natural expectations of the United 
 States on the ground of contiguity have not been disregarded. 
 
[ 1 ] 48 
 
 Next comes to be examined the claim derived from Spain. 
 
 It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that, by the treaty of 1819, Spain did 
 convey to the United Slates all that she had the power to dispose of on the 
 northwest coast of America, north of the 42d parallel of latitude; but she 
 could not, by that transaction, annul or invalidate the rights which she had, 
 by a previous transaction, acknowledged to belong to another power. 
 
 By the treaty of 2Sth October, 1790, Spain acknowledged in Great 
 Britain certain rights with respect to those parts of the western coast of 
 America not already occupied. 
 
 This acknowledgment had reference especially to the territory wliiclt 
 forms the subject of the present negotiation. If Spain could not make 
 good her own right to exclusive dominion over those regions, still less 
 could she confer such a right on another power: and hence Great Britain 
 argues, that from nothing deduced from the treaty of 1819 can the United 
 Stales assert a valid claim to exclusive dominion over any part of the Ore- 
 goti territory. 
 
 There remains to be considered the claim advanced by the United States 
 on the ground of prior discovery and prior exploration and settlement. 
 
 In that part of the memorandum of the American plenipotentiary which 
 speaks of the Spanish title, it is stated that the mouth of the river after¬ 
 wards called the Columbia river was first discovered by the Spanish navi¬ 
 gator Heceta. The admission of this fact would appear to be altogether 
 irreconcilable with a claim to priority of discovery from anything accom¬ 
 plished by Captain Gray. To one, and to one only, of those commanders, 
 cai^ be conceded the merit of first discovery. If Hoceta’s claim is ac¬ 
 knowledged, then Captain Gray is no longer the discoverer of the Colum¬ 
 bia river. If, on the other hand, preference is given to the achievement of 
 Captain Graj', then Heceta’s discovery ceases to be of any value. But it i.s 
 argued that the United States now represent both titles—the title of Meceta 
 and the title of Gray: and, therefore, that under one or the other—it mat¬ 
 ters not which—enough can be shown to establish a case of prior discovery 
 as against Great Britain. This may be true, as far as relates to the act of 
 first seeing and first entering the mouth of the Columbia river ; but if the 
 Spanish claim to prior discovery is to prevail, whatever rights may thereon 
 be founded are necessarily restricted by the stipulations of the treaty,of 
 1790, which forbid a claim to exclusive possession. 
 
 If the act of Captain Gray in passing the bar and actually entering the 
 river is to supersede the discovery of the entrance, which is all that is at¬ 
 tributed to Heceta, then the principle of progressive or gradual discovery 
 being admitted as conveying, in proportion to the extent of discovery or 
 exploration, superior rights, the operations of Vancouver in entering, sur¬ 
 veying, and exploring, to a considerable distance inland, the river Colum¬ 
 bia, would, as a necessary consequence, supersede the discovery of Captain 
 Gray, to say nothing of the act of taking possession in the name of his 
 sovereign, which ceremony was duly performed and authentically recorded 
 by Captain Vancouver. 
 
 This brings us to an examination of the conflicting claims of Great 
 Britain and the United States on the ground of discovery, which may be 
 .said to form the essential point in the"discussion, for it has above been 
 ■shown that the claim derived from France must be considered as of little 
 or no weight, while that derived from Spain, in as far as relates to 
 
-exclusive doniinion, is neutralized by the stipulations of the Nootka con¬ 
 vention. 
 
 It will be adiiiiticd that when the United Stales became an independent 
 nation, they possessed no claim, direct or indirect, to die Golumbia territory. 
 Their western boundary, in those days, was dclined by the treaty of 1783, 
 Great Britain, on the contrary, had, at that time, already directed her at¬ 
 tention to the northwest coast of America, as is siifficieiitly shown by the 
 ■ voyage and discoveries of Captain Conk, who, in 1778, visited and e.'C- 
 plored aorent portion of it from latitude 44° northwards. 
 
 That Great Britain was the tirst to acquire what may be called a hene- 
 licial interest in those regions by commercial iuterconr.se, will not, either, 
 be denied. In proof of this fact, we have tlirr voyages of the several British 
 subjects who visited the coast and adjacent islands previously to the dis¬ 
 pute with Spain ; and lhat her commerce, actual as well as prospective, in 
 that part of the world, was considered a matter of great national import- 
 ■niice, is shown by the resolute measures which she took for its protection, 
 when Sjiaiii manifested a disposition to interfere with it. 
 
 The discoveries of Meares. in 1788, and the complete survey of the 
 coast and its adjacent islands, from about latitude 411° northwards, which 
 was effected by Captain Vancouver in 1792,1793, and 1794, would appear 
 to give to Great Britain, as against the United States, as strong a claim on 
 ■the ground of discovery and e.xploraiion coastwise as can well be imagincdjir 
 limited only by what was accomplished by Captain Gray at the month of 
 '(ho Columbia, which, as far as discovery is concerned, forms the strong 
 point on the American side of the question. 
 
 In point of accuracy and authenticity, it is believed that the perform¬ 
 ances of Cook and Vancouver stand pre-eminently superior to those of any 
 other country whose vessels had, in those days, visited the northwest coast, 
 while, in potnt of value raid importance, surely the discovery of a single 
 harbor, although at the mouth of an important river, cannot, as giving a 
 claim to territory, be placed in competition with the vast extent of dis¬ 
 covery and survey accomplished by the British navigators. 
 
 As regards exploration inland, entire justice must be done to the momo- 
 rable exploit of MM. Lewis and Clarke; but those distinguished travel- 
 .Icrs were not the first who effected a passage across the Oregon territory 
 from the Rocky mountains to the Pacific. As fir back as 1793, that feat 
 had been accomplished by Mackenzie, a British subject. In the course of 
 this expedition, Mackenzie explored the upper waters of a river since called 
 Frazer’s river, which, in process of time, was traced to us jnnenon with the 
 ■sea near Ihe 49tli degree of latitude; thus forming, in point of exploration, 
 a counterpoise to the exploration of that part of the Columbia which was 
 first visited by Lewis and Clarke. 
 
 ■ Priority of settlement is the third plea on whicii the American claim 
 proper is made to rest. 
 
 In 1811, an establishment for the purposes of trade was formed at the 
 south side of the Columbia river, near to its month, by certain American 
 citizens. This establishment passed, during the war, into the hands of 
 British subjects; but it was restored to the American government, in the 
 year 1818, by an understanding between the two governments, Since 
 when, it has not. however, been in reality occupied by Americans. Tliis is 
 the case of priority of setilemenf. 
 
 The American plenipotentiary lays some stress on the admission altrib- 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 [1] 
 
 ■nted to Lord Castlorengli, then principal Secretary of Stale for Foreign. 
 Affairs, that “the American government had the most ample right to be 
 reinstated, and to bo considered the party in possession while treating of the 
 title.” The nndorsigned is not inclined to dispute an assertion resting on 
 such respectable authority; but he must observe, in the first place, that the 
 reservation implied by the words “ while treating of the title,'' exclude any 
 inference which might otherwise be drawn from the preceding words, pre¬ 
 judicial to the title of Groat Britain ; and, further, that when the authority 
 of the American minister is thus admitted lor an obsi;rvaiion which is 
 pleaded against England, it is but fair that, on the part of the United 
 States, .credit shmdd be given to England for the authenticity of a despatch 
 from Lord Casllercagh to tlie British minister at Washington, which was 
 comniniiicated verbally to the government of the United States, when the 
 restoration of the esiablisliment called Astoria, or Fort George, was in con¬ 
 templation, containing a complete reservation of the right of England to 
 the territory at the month of the Columbia. (Statement of the British 
 plenipotentiaries. December, ISStl.) 
 
 In-fine, the present state of the question between the two governments 
 appears to be tliis ; Great Britain possesses and exercises, in common with 
 the United States, a right of joint occupancy in the Oregon territory, of 
 ^which right she can be divested with respect to any part of that territory 
 *ouly by an equitable partition of the whole between the two powers. 
 
 It is for obvious reasons desirable that such a partition should take place 
 as soon as possible, and the difficulty appears to be in devising a line of 
 demarcation which sliall leave to each parly that precise portion of the ter¬ 
 ritory best suited to its interest and convenience. 
 
 The British government entertained the liope that by the proposal lately 
 submitted for the consideration of the American government, that object 
 would have been accomplished. 
 
 According to the avrangemeiu therein coniemplatcd, the northern boun¬ 
 dary of the United Stales, west of the Rocky mountains, would for a con¬ 
 siderable distance be carried along the same parallel of latitude which forms 
 their northern boundary on the eastern side of those mountain.'-; thus 
 uniting the present eastern boundary of the Oregon territory with the 
 western boundary of the United States, from the 49tli parallel d.owiiwards. 
 
 From the point where the 49th degree of latitude intor.sects the iiorth- 
 easlevn branch of the Columbia river, called in that part of its course 
 McGillevray’s river, the proposed line of boundary would bo along the 
 middle of that river till it joins the Columbia ; then along the middle of the 
 Columbia to the ocean ; the navigation of the river remaining perpetually 
 free to both parties. 
 
 In addition, Great Britain offers a separate territory on the Pacific, pos¬ 
 sessing an excellent harbor, with a further miderstanding that any port or 
 ports, whether on Vancouver’s island or on the continent south of the 49th 
 parallel, to which the United Slates might desire to have access, shall be 
 made free ports. 
 
 It is believed that by this arrangement ample justice would he done to 
 the claims of the United States, on whatever ground advanced, with rela¬ 
 tion to Ihe Oregon territory. As regards extent of territory, they would 
 obtain, acre for acre, nearly half of the entire territory to be divided. ,As 
 relates to the navigation of the principal river, they would enjoy, a perfect 
 equality of right with Great Britain ; and, with respect to harbors, it will 
 
51 
 
 cn 
 
 be seen that Great liritaiu shows every disposition to consult their con¬ 
 venience in that particular. On the other hand, were Great Britain to 
 abandon the line of the Columbia as a frontier, and to surrender her right to 
 the navigation of that river, the prejudice occasioned to her by such an 
 arrangement would, beyond all proportion, exceed the advantage accruing 
 to the United States from the possession of a few more square miles of ter¬ 
 ritory. It must be obvious to every impartial investigator of the subject 
 that, in adhering to the lino of the Columbia, Great Britain is not influ¬ 
 enced by motives of ambition with rei'erence to extent of territory, but by 
 considerations of utiiitjq not to say necessity, which cannot be lost sight 
 of, and for which alhrwance ought to be made in an arrangement professing 
 to bo based on considerations of mutnal convenience and advantage. 
 
 The imdersio-ned believes that he has now noticed all the arguments 
 advanced hy the American plenipotentiary, in order to sliow that the United 
 States are fairly entitled to the entire region drained hy the Columbia river. 
 He sincerely regrets that their views on tliis subject should differ in so 
 many essential respects. 
 
 Jt remains for him to request that as the American plenipotentiary 
 declines the proposal offered on the part of Groat Britain, he. will have the 
 goodness to state what arrangement he is, on the part of the United States, 
 prepared to propose for an equitable adjustment of the question ; and more 
 especially that he will have the goodness to define the nature and extent of 
 the claims which the United States may have to other portions of the ter¬ 
 ritory, to whicli allusion is made in the concluding part of his statement, 
 as it is obvious that no arrangement can be made with respect to a part 
 of the territory in dispute while a claim is reserved to any portion of the 
 remainder. 
 
 The undersigned, British plenipotentiary, has the honor to renew to the 
 American plenipotentiary the assurance of his high considorntinn. 
 
 II. PAKENHAM. 
 
 , Depart.ment of St.we, 
 
 Yiashington, t^epUmbf.r 20, 1844. 
 
 The undersigned, American plenipotentiary, has read wiili attention the 
 counter statement of the British plenipoteiitiary, but without weakening his 
 confidence in the validity of the title of the United States to the territory, as 
 set forth in his statement marked A. As therein set forth, it rests, in the 
 first place, on priority of discovery, sustained by their own proper claims, 
 and those derived from Spain through the treaty of E'lorida. 
 
 The undersigned does not underiltand the counter statement as denying 
 that the Spanish navigators were the first to discover and explore the entire 
 coasts of the Oregon territory, nor that Heceta was the first who discovered 
 the mouth of Columbia river; nor that Captain Gray was the first to pass 
 its bar, enter its mouth, and sail up its stream; nor that these, if jointly held 
 by the United States, would give them the priority of discovery which they 
 claim. On the contrary, it would seem that the counter statemem, from 
 the ground it takes, admits such would be the case, on that supposition; for 
 it assumes that Spain, by the Nootka Sound convention in 1790, divested 
 
[ 1 ] 52 
 
 herself of all claims lo the territory founded on the prior discovery and ex¬ 
 plorations of her navigators, and thtit she could conscqueiilly transfer none 
 to the United States by the treaty of Florida. Having put aside the cliiirns 
 of Spain by this a'sinnption, the counter statement next titiempis to oppose 
 the daiitis of tlto Utiilcd Slates by those fotiiidad on the voyages of Captains 
 Cook atid tMetires, attd to supersede the discovery of Gaptuiti Gray, on Ihu 
 grotitid that Y.iticottver stiiled farther itp the Colttinbiti river than he did, 
 although he e/lected it by the t.id of liis discoveries attd charts. 
 
 It tvil! not he expected of the titidcrsigtied that he sltottM sctiotisly nn- 
 dertalre to repel wiiat he i.s constrtiined to regard as a tnerc assiimptinn, ttn- 
 siistained by ntty rcasott. It is .siiflicietit. on his pari, lo say tliat, in hi.s 
 opinion, there is nothing in the .\ooika Sound convenlioii, or in the trans¬ 
 actions which led lo it, or in the circiitnsiances attending it, to warrant the 
 assumption. The convention relates wholly to other subjects, and contains 
 not a word in reference to tite claims of Spain. It is on tliis assttmplioa 
 that the counter staloineni rests its objection lo the well-founded Anterican 
 claims to priority of discovery. Without it there would not be a plausible 
 objection left to ibem. 
 
 The two next claims on which the United States rest their title to the 
 territory, as set forth in slaleiiient A, are founded on their own proper right, 
 and c.amiot possibly be alfected by tiie assumed claims of Great Britain de¬ 
 rived from the Noolka convention. 
 
 The first of these is, priority of discovery and exploiation of the head¬ 
 waters and upper portion of the Columbia river, by Lewis and Clarke; by 
 wliich that great .stream was first brought to the knowledge of the world, 
 with the exception of a small portion near the ocean, including its nioidh. 
 This the cmttiier state/ni'iit admits, hiti atterapis to set oft' against it the prior 
 discovery of .Mackenzie of the headwaters of Frazer’s river, quite an inferior 
 stream, wliicli drains the nonlteni portion of the territory. It is clear, that 
 whatever right Gieat Britain may derive from his discovery, it ctni in tio 
 degree afl'eef the riglit of the United States to the region drained by the 
 Columbia, which may be einpliaticaliy called the river of the territory. 
 
 Tile next of these, founded on their own proper right, is priority of set¬ 
 tlement. It is not denied by the counter statement that we formed the first 
 settlements ju the portion of the territory drained by the Columbia river ; 
 nor does it deny that Astoria, the most considerable pf them, was restored 
 under the third article of the treaty of Ghent, by agents on the part of Great 
 Britain duly auihorizod to make the restoraiioii, to an agent on the part of 
 the United Slates duly authorized to receive it. Nor does it deny tliat, in 
 virtue thereof, they have tlie right to be reinstated, and considered tbn party 
 in possession while treating of tlie title, as was admitted by l.nrd Castle- 
 reagli in the negotiation of ISIS; nor that tlie cnnveniion of 1818, signed 
 a few days after the restoratimj, and that of 1827, which is still in force, 
 have preserved and perpetuatoil, until now, all the rtglits they possessed to 
 the territory at the time, iiiclndiiig that of being reinstiitcd and coiibidered 
 the party in posse.ssion wliiie the qne.siion of title is depending, as is now 
 the case. It is ti'tif, it atlempt.s to weaken the eflect of these implied admis¬ 
 sions; in the fir.st place, by designating positive treaty stipulatious as ‘’an 
 undersiaiidiiig between the two governments;” but a eliange of phraseology 
 ■cannotpossibly transform treaty olligatinns into a mere iindersiandiitg; and, 
 in the next place, by staling tliot we have not, since the restoration of As¬ 
 toria, actually occupied it; but that cannot possibly affect our right to be 
 
53 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 reiiistp.led, and to bo considered in possession, secured to us by the treaty of 
 Ghent, implied in the act of restoration, and since preserved by positive 
 treaty stipulations. Nor can the remarks of the coutiter statement in refer¬ 
 ence to Lord Castleroagii’s admission weaken our riL'ht of possession, secured 
 by tiie treaty, atid its formal and nnconditioiml restoration, by duly author¬ 
 ized agents. It is on tiiese, and not on die denial of the authenlicily of 
 Lord Gastieroagh’s despatedt, that the United States rest their right of pos¬ 
 session, whatever verbal communication the British minister may liavc made 
 at tlie time to otir Si crotary of Slate; and it is on tiu'se that they may safely 
 rest it, setting aside allogeliter the admissioii of Lord Casllereagli. 
 
 'I'he iifi.'ct claims on whicli our title to tito. lerritorv rests are titosn derived 
 from Spain, by tlie treaty ceding Lnui.siaua to die United States, including 
 tiio.so. she derived from Great Brdaiii by tlie treaty of 1703. It established 
 the liiississippi as ■■ ilieirrevocablu boundary iietwe.en tlie territories of Franco 
 and Great Britain;'’ and lliereliy tlie. latter surrendered to France all her 
 claims on this coiiliiienl, west of that river; including, of course, all 
 withiii the chartered limits of her then colonie.s, which extended to the 
 Pacific ocean. On these, united with those of France ns the posses,sor of 
 Louisiana, we rest our claim of coulinuity, as extending to that ocean, 
 without an opposing claim, except that of Spain, which we have since ac¬ 
 quired, and consequently removed, by the, treaty oi Florida. 
 
 Tile exi.stetit'o of these claims 1 o c - 
 
 thority of Mr. Jefferson ; bur, a.s it appears to tlie under.signed, without ad¬ 
 equate reasons, lie does not itnderslaiid Mr. Jeffer.-nii as denying tlint tlie 
 United Stales acijuired any claim to tiie Oregon territory liy the, acquisition 
 of Louisiana, either in his letter of 1803, referred to by tiie coniiier state¬ 
 ment, and from wiiicli it gives an extract, or in the doenmciit of 1807, to 
 which it also refers. It is manifest, from the extract itself, that liio objecl 
 of Mr. Jefferson was, not to state the extent of the claims acquired willi 
 Louisiana, but simply to state liow far its nnqiiesliouod boundaries extend¬ 
 ed ; and these lie limited wostwavdly liy tlie Rocky moiiiilaiiis. It is, in 
 like manner, manifest from tlie docnmeni. as cited by tlie counter statement, 
 that his object was not to deny that our claims extended to the territory, 
 blit simply to express liis opiision of the impolicy, in tlie then state of oiir 
 lelatioiis wiiii Spain, of liringing them forward. Tln.s, so far from denying 
 tiiat we liad claims, admit,; tiiem by tlie clearest tmuliciiiioii. If, iiide,td,iiL 
 eitlier rase, ids opii.inn had been equivocally expressed, tlie prompt measures 
 adopted liy liim to c.xplore tlie territory after the treaty was negotiated, hut 
 hefore it was ratiiiod, eltnriy show lliat it was nisopminn mn ciily iliat we 
 li.id acquired claims to it, but highly important claims, wliieli deserved prompt 
 altenlioii. 
 
 ■ In addition to this denial of our claims to the territory on the authority 
 of Mr. Jefferson, which tlie evidence relied on doc; not seem to sustain, the 
 counter siatemeiil iutimate.s an objection to continuity as tlie fottndalimi of 
 a right on the ground that it may more properly be considered (to iise its 
 own words) as demonstrating tliO greater degree of interest wliich the 
 United Stales po.>sessed by reason of contigiiily in acquiring territory in a 
 westward direciion. Contiguity may, indeed, bo resardccl as one of llm 
 eiemenis constituting the right of continuity—which is more coiiiprelien- 
 sive—and is necessarily associated with the right of occupancy, as ha.s 
 been sliown in stalement A. It also shows, that the laws witicli nsn<£e lias 
 eatablislied in the application of tlie right to this continent, give to tlie Eu¬ 
 ropean settlements on its eastern coasts an indefinite extension westward, 
 
54 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 It is now too late for Great Britain to deny a riglit on wliich she has acted 
 so long, and by which she lias profited so much ; or to regard it as a mere 
 facility, not aflecling in any way the question of riffhf. On what other 
 right lias she extended her claims westwarcfly (o the Pacific ocean from 
 her settlements around Hudson’s Bay 1 or expelled France from the east 
 side of the Mississippi in the war which terminated in IffiS'l 
 
 As to the assumption of the counter statement, that Louisiana, while in 
 the possession of Spain, became subject to the JS’ootka Sound convention, 
 which; it is alleged, abrogated all the claims of Spain to the territory, in¬ 
 cluding those acquired with Louisiana, it will be time enough to consider it 
 after it shall be attempted to be shown that such, in reality, was the effect. 
 In the mean time, the United States must continue to believe that they 
 acquired from France, by the treaty of Louisiana, important and substantial 
 claims to the territory. 
 
 The undersigned cannot assent to the conclusion to which, on a review 
 of the whole ground, the counter statement arrives—that the present state 
 .of the question is, that Great Britain possesses and exercises, in common 
 with the United States, a right of joint occupancy in the Oregon territory, 
 of which she can be divested only by an equitable partition of the whole 
 between the two powers. He claims, and he thinks he has shown, a clear 
 title on the part of the United States, to the whole region drained by the 
 Columbia, with the right of being reinstated, and considered the party in 
 possession, while treating of the title; in which character he must insist on 
 their being considered in conformity with positive treaty stipulations. He 
 cannot, therefore, consent that they shall be regarded, during the negotia¬ 
 tion, merely as occupants in common with Great Britain. Nor can he, 
 while thus regarding their rights, present a counter proposal, based on the 
 supposition of a joint occupancy merely, until the question of title to the 
 territory is fully discussed. It is, in his opinion, only after such a discus¬ 
 sion, which shall fully present the titles of the parties respectively to the 
 territory, that their claims to it can be fairly and satisfactorily adjusted. 
 The United States desire only what they may deem themselves justly enti¬ 
 tled to; and arc unwilling to take less. With their present opinion of their 
 title, the British plenipotetitiary must see that the proposal which he made 
 at the second conference, and which he more fully sets forth in his coutiter 
 statement, fiills far short of what they believe themselves justly entitled to. 
 
 In reply to the request of the British plenipotentiary, that the undersigned 
 should define the nature and extent of the claims which the United States 
 have to the other portions of the territory, and to which allusion is made 
 in the concluding part of statement A, he has the honor to inform him, in 
 general terms, that they are derived from Spain by the Florida treaty, and 
 are founded on the discoveries and exploration of her navigators; and 
 which they must regard as giving them a right to the extent to which they 
 can be established, unless a better can be opposed. 
 
 J. U. CALHOUN. 
 
 The Right Hon. Riciiaru Pakbxham, tj-c. cj-c. tj-c. 
 
 3}r. Pakenham to Mr. Calhoun. 
 
 Washington, January 15,1845. 
 
 Sir : I did not fail to communicate to her majesty’s government all that 
 
55 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 had passed between us, with reference to tiie question of the Oregon bound¬ 
 ary, np to the end of last September, as detailed in the written statements 
 interchanged by ns, and in the protocols of our conferences. 
 
 Those papers remain under the consideration of her majesty's govern¬ 
 ment ; and I have reason fo believe that, at no distant period, I shall be 
 put in possession of the views of her majesty's government on the several 
 points which became most prominent in the course of the discussion. 
 
 But considering on the one hand the impatience which is manifested in 
 the United States for a settlement of this question, and on the other the 
 length of time which would probably be still required to effect a satisfac¬ 
 tory adjustment of it between the two governments, it has occurred to her 
 snajesty’.s government that, under snch circnmstances, no more fair or hon¬ 
 orable mode of settling the question could be adopted than that of arbi¬ 
 tration. 
 
 This proposition I am accordingly authorized to offer for the considera¬ 
 tion of the government of the United Slates; and, under the supposition that 
 it may be found acceplijble, further to suggest that the consent of both par¬ 
 ties to such a cour.sB of proceeding being recorded by an interchange of 
 notes, the choice of an arbiter, and Ihe mode in which their respective cases 
 shall be laid before him, may hereafter be made the subject of a more formal 
 agreement between tire two governments. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient ser- 
 
 R. PAKENIIAM. 
 
 Hon. John C. Calhoun, ^-c. tj-c. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun lo Mr. Pakenkam. 
 
 Department op State, 
 
 Washington, .lanuartj 21,1845; 
 
 Sir : I have laid before the President your communication of Ihe 16th 
 instant, offering, on the part of her majesty’s government, to submit the 
 settlement of the question bettveen the two countries in reference to the 
 Oregon territory to arbitration. 
 
 The President in.strucls me to inform you that, while he unites with her 
 majesty’s government in the desire to see the question settled as early as 
 ttiay be practicable, he cannot accede to the offer. 
 
 Waiving all other reasons for declining it, it issnfricient to state that he 
 continues to enlertniii the hope that the question may be settled by thene- 
 ■gotiation now pending between the two countries; and that he is of the 
 opinion it would be uiiadvisahle to entertain.a proposal to resort to any 
 ■other mode, so long as there is hojiB of arriving at a satisfactory settlement 
 ‘by negotiation, and especially to one which miglit rather retard than e.x:- 
 pedite its final adjnstmoiit. 
 
 I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you the assurance of my dis- 
 tiiisuishcd consideration. 
 
 Kt. Hon. R. Pakenham, c^’c. tj'c. 
 
 J. C. CALHOUN. 
 

 66 
 
 J. B. 
 
 Department op State, 
 
 Was/tiiiglon, My 12, 1S45. 
 
 The undersigned, Secretary of Slate of the United Stales, now proceeds- 
 to resume the iiegotialioti on the Oregon question, at the point where iU 
 was left hy his predecessor. 
 
 The Bnlisli pleiirpoleniiaiy, in his note to Mr. Calhoun of the 12th Sep¬ 
 tember last, requests “llial as the American plenipotentiary declines the 
 proposal offered on the part of Great Britain, he will have the goodness to ■ 
 Slate what arrangement he i.-:, on the part of the United States, prepared to 
 propose for an equitable adjustment of the question ; and more especially 
 that he will have the goodness to define the nature and extent of the claims 
 which the United States may have to other portions of the territory to 
 which allusion is made in the concluding part of his statement, as it is 
 obvious that no arrangement can be made with respect to a part of the- 
 territory in dispute wliile a claim is reserved to any portion of the remainder.” 
 
 The Secretary of State will ii.-iw proceed, (reversing the order in which 
 llie.se requests have be.on made,) in the first place, to present the title of the 
 United States to the territory north of liie valley of the Columbia, and will 
 then propose, on the part of the President, the terms tipon which, in his ■ 
 opinion, this long pending controversy may be justly and equitably termi¬ 
 nated between tlie parties. 
 
 The title of tlie United Stales to that portion of the Oregon territory be- 
 ■tween tin valley of the Columbia and the Enssian line in 54° 40' north- 
 latiuide is recorded in the Plorida treaty. Under litis treaty, dated on the ■ 
 22d February, 1S19, Spain ceded to the United States all her “rights,, 
 ■claims, and pretensions,” to any territories west of the .Rocky mountains and 
 north of the 42d parallel of latitude. We contend that at the date of this 
 cession Spain had a good title, as against Great Britain, to the whole 
 ■Oregon territory; and, if this he established, the question is then decided 
 in favor of the United Slates. 
 
 But the American title i.s now encountered at every step by declarations- 
 that we hold it siihjcct to all the conditions of the Nootka Sound convetiliou 
 between Great Britain and Spain, signed at the Rscurial on the 2Sth of 
 ■October, 1790. Great Britain contends that under this convention the 
 title of Spain was limited to a mere common right of joint occupancy with 
 Jierself over the whole territory. To employ tire langtiago of the British 
 plenipotentiary, “If Spain could not make good her own right of exclusive 
 dominion over those regions, still less could she confer such a rigid on 
 another power; and hence Great Britain argues that from nothing deduced 
 from the treaty of I8t9 can the United States as.sert a valid claim to ex¬ 
 clusive dominion over any part of the Oregon territory.” Hence it is that 
 Great Britain, resting her pretensions on the A'ootka Sound convention, 
 has necessarily limited her claim to a mere rigid of joint occupancy over 
 the whole territory in common with the United States as the succeiisor of 
 Spain, leaving the right of exclusive dominii'n in abeyance. 
 
 It is, then, of the lirst importance that we should ascertain the true con¬ 
 struction and meaning of the Nootka Sound convention. 
 
 If it should appear that this treaty was transient in its very nature; that 
 it conferred upon Great Britain n.i right but that of merely trading with 
 the Indians whilst the country should remain unsettled, and making lh&' 
 
57 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 necessary establishments for this purpose; that it did not interfere with the 
 ultimate sovereignty of Spain over the territory; and, above all, that it was 
 anrinlied by the war between Spain and Great Britain in 1790, and has 
 never since been renewed by the. parties, tlieii the British claim to any por¬ 
 tion of this territory will prove to bo destitute of foundation. 
 
 It is unnecessary to detail the circmnsianees onl of which this conven¬ 
 tion arose. It i.s sufficient to say that John Meares, a British subject, sailing 
 under the Portuguese flag, landed at Nootka Sound in 17SS, and made a 
 temporary establishment there for the purpose of building a vessel; and 
 that the Spaniards, in 17S9, took possession of this establishment under the 
 orders of the Vice Roy of Me.xico, who claimed for Spain the exclusive sov¬ 
 ereignly of the whole territory on tlie northwest coast of America up to the 
 Russian line. Meares tippealed to the British government for redress 
 against Spain, and the danger of war between the two nations became im¬ 
 minent. This wa.s prevented by the conclusion of the iXootka Sound con¬ 
 vention. That convention provide.';, by its first and second articles, for the 
 restoration of the lands and buildings of which the subjects of Great Britain 
 liad been dispossessed by the Spaniards, and the payment of an indemnity 
 for the injuries sustained. This indemnity was paid by Spain: but no 
 sufficient evidence has been adduced, that either Nooika Sound, or any 
 other spot upon the coast, was ever actually surrendered by that power to 
 Great Britain. All we know with certainty i.s, that Spain continued in 
 possession of Nootka Sound until 1795, when she voluntarily abandoned 
 the place. Since that period no attempt has been made (unless very 
 recently) by Great Britain, or her subjects, to occupy either tlii-s or any 
 other part of Vancouver’s island. It is ilius manilest, that she did not 
 formerly attach much importance to the exercise of the rights, whatever 
 they may have been, which she had acquired under the Nootka Soun^ con¬ 
 vention. 
 
 The only other portion of this convention important for the present dis¬ 
 cussion, will be found in the third and the fifih articles. They are as fol¬ 
 lows : 
 
 “Art. 3. In order to strengthen the bonds of friendship, and to preserve 
 in future a perfect harmony and good understanding between the two con¬ 
 tracting parlies, it is agreed that their respective subjects shall not be dis- 
 turbed'or molested eftlier in navigaliiig or carrying on ilicir fi.sheries in 
 the Pacific ocean or in the- South seas, or in landing on the coasis of those 
 seas in places not already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on their 
 commerce with the natives of the country, or of making .setilemeiils there; 
 the whole subject, nevertheless, to the restrictions specified in the three fol¬ 
 lowing articles.” The material one of which is, 
 
 .“Art. 5. As well in the places which are to he restored to the British 
 subjects, by virtue of tlie first article, as in all other parts of the northwest¬ 
 ern coasis of Norih America, or of the islands adjacent, situate to the north 
 of the parts of the said coasi already occupied by Spain, wherever the sub¬ 
 jects of either of the two powers shall have made settlements since the. 
 month of April, 17S9, cr shall liereafier make any, the subjects of the other 
 shall have free access, nnd shall carry on their trade without any disturb¬ 
 ance or molesiation." 
 
 It may be observed as a strikinv fact, which must have an important 
 bearing against the claim of Great Britain, that this conveniion, which was 
 dictated by her to Spain, contains no provision impairing the ultimate sov- 
 
58 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 ereignty which tliat power had asserted for nearly three centuries over the 
 whole western side of North America as far north as the 61st degree of 
 latitude, and which had never been seriously questioned by any European 
 nation. Tliis right had been maintained by Spain with the most vigilant 
 jealousy ever since the discovery of the American continent, and had been 
 acquiesced in by all European governments. It had been admitted even 
 beyond the latitude of 54° dCf north by Russia, then the only power liaving 
 claims which could come in collision with Spain; and that, too, under a 
 sovereign peculiarly tenacious of the territorial rights of her empire. This 
 will appear from the letter of Count de Fernan Nhinez, the Spanish ambas- 
 siidor at Paris, to M. de Monlmorin, the Secretary of the Foreign Depart¬ 
 ment of Prance, dated Paris, .Tune 16,1700. From this letter it seems that 
 complaints had been made by Spain to the court of Russia, against Russian 
 subjects, for violating the Spanish territory on thg northwest coast of Amer¬ 
 ica, south of the 6lst degree of north latitude; in consequence of which 
 that’court, without delay, assured the King of Spain “that it was extremely 
 sorry that the repeated orders issued to prevent the subjects of Russia from 
 violating, in the smallest degree, the territory belonging to another power, 
 should have been disobeyed.” 
 
 This convention of 1790 recognises no right in Great Britain, either 
 present or prospective, to plant permanent colonies on the northwest coast 
 of America, or to exercise such exclusive jurisdiction over any portion of 
 it as is essential to sovereignty. Great Britain obtained from Spain all she 
 then desired,—a mere engagement that her subjects should “ not be dis¬ 
 turbed or molested” “ in landing on the coasts of those seas, in places not 
 already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the 
 natives of the country, or of making settlements there.” What kind of 
 “ settlements V’ This is not specified; but surely their character and dura¬ 
 tion are limited by the object which the contracting parties had in view. 
 
 ' They must have been such only as were necessary and proper “ for the 
 purpose of carrying on commerce with the natives of the country.” Were 
 these settlements intended to expand into colonies; to expel the natives; to 
 deprive Spain of her sovereign rights, and to confer the exclusive jurisdic¬ 
 tion over the whole territory on Great Britain? Surely Spain never de¬ 
 signed any such results; and if Great Britain has obtained these conces¬ 
 sions by the Nootica Sound convention, it has been by the most extraordi¬ 
 nary construction ever imposed upon human language. But this conven¬ 
 tion also stipulates that to these settlements, which might be made by the 
 one party, “ the subjects of the other shall have free access, and shall curry 
 on their trade without any disturbance or molestation.” What trade? 
 Certainly that “ with the natives of the country,” as prescribed in the third 
 article; and this, from the very nature of things, could continue only 
 whilst the country should remain in the possession of the Indians. 'On no 
 other conslruciion can this convention escape from the absurdities attributed 
 to it by British statesmen, when under discussion before the House of Com¬ 
 mons. “ In every place in which we might settle, (said Mr., afterwards 
 Earl Grey,) access was left for the Spaniards. Where we might form a 
 settlement on one hill, they might erect a fort on aqolher; and a merchant 
 must run all tlie risks of a discovery, and all the expenses of an establish¬ 
 ment, for a property which was liable to be the subject of continued dis¬ 
 pute, and could never be placed upon a permanent footing.” 
 
 Most certainly this treaty was in its very nature temporary, and the rights 
 
59 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 of C 113 It ler it were never intended to “ be placed npon a perma¬ 
 nent footing.’’ It was to endure no longer tlian tlie existence of those pecu¬ 
 liar causes which called it into being. Such a treatv, creating British and 
 Spanish settlements intermingled with each oilier, and dotted over the whole 
 surface of the territory, wherever a British or Spanish rperchant could find 
 a spot favorable tor trade with the Indians, never could have been intended 
 for a permanent arraugement between civilized nations. 
 
 But, whatever may be the true construction of the Mootlca Sound con¬ 
 vention, it has, in thoopinion of the undersigned, long since ceased to exist. 
 
 The general rule of naiioiml law is, that war lerniinatos all subsisting 
 treaties between llie. belligeralil powers. Great Britain has maintained this 
 rule to its ulinosl extent." Lord Bathurst, in negotiating with Mr. Adams, 
 in 1815, says “ that Great Britain hnows of no exception to the. rule that 
 -all treaties are put an end to by a subsequent war between the same par¬ 
 ties.” Porluips the only exception to tliis rnie, if such it may be styled, is 
 that of a treaty recognising certain sovereign righ.ts as belonging to a nation 
 which had previously existed independently of any treaty engagement. 
 These rights, which the treaty did not create, but merely acknowledged, 
 cannot be destroyed by war between the parties. Such was the acknowl¬ 
 edgment of the fa'ct by Great Britain, under the definitive treaty of 1783, 
 tliiit the United States were “free, sovereign, and independent.” It will 
 -scarcely be contended that the Nootka Sound convention belongs to this 
 class of treaties. It is difficult to imagine any case in which a treaty con¬ 
 taining mutual engagements, still remaining, unexecuted, would not be ab¬ 
 rogated by war. "The Nootka Sound convention is strictly of this charac- 
 •ter. The declaration of war, therefore, by Spain against Great Britain, in 
 October, 1796, annulled its provisions and freed the parties from its obliga¬ 
 tions. This whole treaty consisted of mutual express engagements to be 
 performed by the contracting parties. Its most important article (the third) 
 iu reference to the present discussion, does not even grant, in affirmative 
 terras, the right to the contracting parties to trade with the Indians and to 
 make settlements. It merely engages, in negative terras, that the subjects 
 of the contracting parties “ shall tmt be disturbed or molested” in the e.x- 
 ■ercise of these treaty privileges. Surely this is not such an engagement as 
 will continue to e.xist in despite of war between the parties. It is gone 
 forever, unless it has been revived in express terms by the treaty of peace, 
 or some other treaty between the parties. Such is the principle of public 
 law, and the practice of civilized nations. 
 
 Has the Nootka Sound convention been thus revived? This depends en¬ 
 tirely upon the true construction of the additional articles to the treaty of 
 Madrid, which were signed on the 2Sih of August, 1814, and contain the 
 only agreement between the parlies, since the war of 1796, for the renewal 
 .of engagements existing previously to the latter date. The first of the ad¬ 
 ditional articles to this treaty provides as follows: “It is agreed that pend¬ 
 ing the negotiation of a new treaty of commerce, Great Britain shall be ad¬ 
 mitted to trade with Spain upon the same conditions as those which existed 
 previously to 1796 ; all the treaties of commerce which at that period sub¬ 
 sisted between tlie two nations being hereby ratified and confirmed.” 
 
 The first observation to be made upon this article, is, that it is confined 
 in terms to the trade with Spain, and does not embrace her colonies or re- 
 ■mote territories. These had always been closed against foreign powers. 
 Spain had never conceded the privilege of trading with her colonies to any 
 
60 
 
 [IJ 
 
 nation, except in the single instance of the Asiento, which was abrogated 
 in 1741), nor did any of the treaties of commerce wliich were in force be¬ 
 tween the two nations previously to 1796 make such a concession to Great 
 Britain. That this is the true construction of the first additional article of 
 the treaty of Madrid appears conclusively from another part of the instru¬ 
 ment. Great Britain, by an irresistible inference, admitted that she had 
 acquired no right under it to trade with the colonies or remote territories of 
 Spain, when she obtained a stipulation in the same treaty, that nin the event 
 of the commerce of the Spanish American pos.sessions being opened to for¬ 
 eign nations, his Catholic majesty promises that Great Britain shall be ad¬ 
 mitted to trade with those possessions as the most favored nation.” 
 
 But even if the first additional article of the treaty of 1814 were not thus 
 expressly limited to the revival of the trade of Great Britain with the king¬ 
 dom of Spain in Europe, without reference to any other portion of her do¬ 
 minions, the Nootka Sound convention can never be embraced under the 
 denomination of a treaty of commerce between the two powers. It con¬ 
 tains no provision whatever to grant or to regulate trade between British and 
 Spanish subjects. Its essentia! part, so far as concerns the present question, 
 relates not to any trade or commerce between the subjects of the ru.spective 
 powers. It merely prohibits the subjects of either from disttirbing or nio- 
 le.sting those of the other iti trading with third parties—the natives of the 
 country. The grant “of making settlements,” whether understood in its 
 broadest or most restricted sense, relates to territorial acquisition, and not to 
 trade or commerce in any imaginable form. The Nootka Sound conven¬ 
 tion, then, cannot, in any sen.se, be considered -a treaty of commerce ; and 
 was not, therefore, revived by the treaty of Madrid of 1814. When the war 
 commenced between Great Britain and Spain, in 1796, several treaties sub¬ 
 sisted between them, which were, both in title and in substance, treaties of 
 commerce. These, and these alone, were revived by the treaty of 1814. 
 
 That the British government itself had no idea, in 1818, that the Nootka 
 Sound conveiiiion was then in force, may be lairly inferred from their si¬ 
 lence upon the subject during the whole negotiation of that year on the 
 Oregon question. This convention was not once referred to by the British 
 plenipotentiarie.s. 'I’hey then rested their claims upon other foundations. 
 Surely that which is now their main reliance would not have escaped the 
 observation of such statesmen, had they then suppo.sed it was in existence. 
 
 In view of all these considerations, the undersigned respectfully submits 
 that, if Great Britain has valid claims to any portion of the Oregon territo¬ 
 ry, they must rest upon a belter foundation than that of the Nootka Sound 
 convention. 
 
 It is far from the intention of the undersigned to repeat the argument by 
 which his predecessor (Mr. Ctilhonn) has demonstrated the American title 
 “ to the entire region drained by the Columbia river and its branche.s.” He 
 has shown that to tlie United States belongs the discovery of the C(ilnmbia> 
 river, and that Captain Gray was the first civilized man who ever entered 
 its month, and sailed tip its channel, baptising the river itself with the name 
 of his vessel; that MM. Lewisaiid Clarke, under a commission from their gov¬ 
 ernment, first explored the waters of this river almost from its head springs 
 to the Pacific, passing the winter of ISfi.oJfi on its northern shove near the 
 ocean ; that the first seiilemciit upon this river was made by a citizen of tha 
 United Slates at Astoria; and that the British government solemnly recog¬ 
 nised our right to the possession of this settlement, which had been cap- 
 
61 
 
 [1] 
 
 (urcd during the war, by surrendeviny it up to the United Slates on the 6th 
 day of October, ISIS, in obedience to the treaty of Ghent. If the discove¬ 
 ry of tlie mouth of a river, followed up within a reasottable tittle by the 
 first exploration both of its main cbaniiel aitd its branches, atid appropri¬ 
 ated by the first sellleutetits ott its banks, do tint coii.sliuite, a title to the terri- 
 tory draitted by its waters in the natiott performing these acts, then the prin¬ 
 ciples con.secrated by the practice of civilized ttalions ever sitice the discov¬ 
 ery of the New World, mnst luivelosl their foice. The.se principles were 
 necessary to preserve the peaco of the wtu'ld. Had they not been enforced 
 in practice, clasbing claims to itewly discovered territory, and perpetual 
 strife among the nations, would Imve been tlie itievitable resnit. 
 
 Tito title, of the United Stales to the emire reirimt drained by the Colum¬ 
 bia river and its branebes was perfect and complete before the dale of the 
 treaties of joint occupation of October, 181S, and August. 1827'; and tinder 
 the express provisions ol these trcatie.s, this title, whilst they endure, can 
 never be impaired by any act®of the British government. In the strong 
 )angn.''ge of the treaty of August, 1827, “ notliiiig contained in this cniiven- 
 tioii, or ill the third article of the convcniioii of October, ISIS, hereby con¬ 
 tinued ill Ibrce, shall be construed to impair, or in auy manner atlent, 
 the claims which either of the coutracliiig parlies may have to any 
 part of the country westward of the Stony or lloi-ky motuilains.” 
 Had not the couvenlion couiaiiied this plain provision, which has prevent¬ 
 ed ills rcspccltve parlies from looking with jealousy on the occtipalinii of 
 portions of tile territory by the cilizviis and subjects of each other, its chief 
 object, which was to preserve peace and prevent collisions in those distant 
 regions, would liavc, Iweii entirely defeated. It is then manifest, that 
 neither the grant of this territory for a term of years, made by Great Brit¬ 
 ain to the Hudson Bay company in Uecetiiber, 1821, nor the extension of 
 this gratit in 1838, nor 1 tit t 1 | and forts which have 
 
 been cslablislied by that company under it, can in the slightest degree 
 strengthen the British or impair the American title to any portion ol the 
 Oregon territory. The British claim is neither better nor worse than it 
 was on the 2Ulh October, 1818, the dale of the first convention. 
 
 The title of the United States to the valley of the Ooinnibia is older than 
 the Florida treaty of February, 1819, under which the United Stales ac- 
 tpiired all the rights of Spain to the northwest coast of America, and exists 
 iiidependenily of its provisions. Even supposing, then, that the British 
 construction of the Nootka Sound convention were correct, it could not ap¬ 
 ply to this portion of the territory in dispute. Aconvemion between Great 
 Britain and Spain, originating from a dispute concerning a petty trading 
 establishment at N’ootka Sound, conld not abridge the rights of other na¬ 
 tions. Both in public and private Itiw, an agreement between two parties 
 can never bind a .third, without his consent, express or implied. 
 
 The e.xtraordiiiary proposition will scarcely he again urged, that onr ac¬ 
 quisition of the rights of Spain nnder the Florida treaty can in any man¬ 
 ner weaken or impair our pre-existing title. It may often become expe¬ 
 dient for nations, as it is for individuals, to purchase an outstanding title 
 merely for the sake of peace; and it has never lierclofore been imagined 
 iliat the aciiiiishioii of such a new title rendered the old one le.ss valid. 
 Under this principle, a parly having two titles would be confined to his 
 worst, and would forfeit his best. Our acquisition of the riglils of Spain, 
 llip.n, under the Florida treaty, whilst it cannot affect the prior title of the 
 United States to the valley of the Columbia; has rendered it more clear and 
 
62 
 
 [1] 
 
 unquestionable before the world. We have a perfect ri^ht to claim under 
 both these titles; and the Spanish title alone, even if it were necessary to 
 confine ourselves to it, would, in the opinion of the President, be good, 
 as against Great Britain, not merely to the valley of the Oninmbia, but the 
 whole territory of Oregon. 
 
 Our own American title to the extent of the valley of the Uolnrabk, rest¬ 
 ing as it does on discovery, exploration, and possession, (a possession ac¬ 
 knowledged by a most solemn act of the British government itself.) i.s a 
 snflicieni assurance against all mankind, whilst onr superadded title derived 
 from Spain extends onr exclusive rights over the whole territory in dispute, 
 as against Groat Britain. 
 
 ■ Snell being the opinion of the President in regard to the title of the 
 United Stales, ho would not have consented to yield any portion of the 
 Oregon territory, had he not found himself embarrassed, if not committed, 
 by tlie acts of his predecessors. 'I’liey bad lyiiformly proceeded upon the- 
 principle of compromise in all their negotiations. Indeed, the first question 
 presented to him after entering upon the duties of his office, was, whether 
 he should abruptly terminate the negotiation which had heen commenced 
 and conducted between Mr. Calhoun and..Mr. Pakciiham on the principla 
 avowed in the first protocol, not of contending for the whole territory in 
 dispute, but of treating of the respective claims of the parties. with the 
 view to oslahlish a permanent boundary between the two countries west¬ 
 ward of the Rocky nionntains.” 
 
 In view of these facts, the President has determined to pursue tfie present 
 negotiation, to its conclusion, upon the principle of compromise in which it 
 commenced, and to make one more effort to adjust, this long pending con¬ 
 troversy. In tins determination he trusts that the British government will 
 recognise his sincere and anxious desire to cultivate the most friendly rela¬ 
 tions between the two countries, and to manifest to the world that he is ac¬ 
 tuated by a spirit of moderation. He has, tlierefore, instructed the under¬ 
 signed again to propose to the government of Great Britain, that the Oregon 
 territory shall he divided between the two countries by the forty-ninth par¬ 
 allel of norih latitude, from tlie Rocky inonniains to the Pacific ocean; oli’er- 
 ing at the same time to make free to Great Britain, any port or ports on 
 Vanconver’s island, south of this parallel, which the British government 
 may desire. He trusts that Great Britain may receive this proposition in 
 the friendly spirit by wliich it was dictated, and that it may prove the sta¬ 
 ble foniidatioii of lasling peace and harmony between the two countries. 
 The line proposed will carry out the principle of continuity equally for 
 both parlies, by exiending the litiiils both of ancient Louisiana and Canada 
 to the Pacific along the same parallel of latilnde which divides them east 
 of the Rocky mountains; and it will secure to each a sufficient number of 
 coinmodious harbors on the nortliwost coast of America. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to Mr. Palc- 
 enbam the assurance of ins distinguislied consideration. 
 
 JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 
 Hi. Hon. R. Pakknuam. ij'f. <.5*c. 
 
63 
 
 [1] 
 
 11. P. 
 
 Washington, Juhj 29, 1815. 
 
 Notwillislanding tlie prolix discussion wliicli liio subject lias already un¬ 
 dergone, the undersigned, her Britannic majesty’s envoy cxlraordiiiaiy and 
 minister plenipotentiary, feels obliged to place on rCcord a few observations 
 in reply to the statement, inarJred J. B, which ho had the honor to receive, 
 bn the i6th of this month, from the hands of the Secretary of State of the 
 United States, terminating with a proposition on the part of the United 
 States for the .settlement of tha Oregon fiueslion. 
 
 In this paper it is stated that - the title o( the United Slates to that por¬ 
 tion of the Oregon Territoiy between the valley oi the Columbia and the 
 Russian line, in 51° 40' north latitude, is recorded in the Florida treaty. 
 Under this ireatv, dated on 22d February, ISlt), Sprdn ceded to the United 
 States all her riuhts, claims, and jiretensions to any territories west of the 
 Rocky monntaiiis and north of the 42d parallel of latiinde. We contend,” 
 says the Secretary of State, “ that at the date of this convention, Spain had 
 a good titie, as against Great Britain, to the whole Oregon territory; and, 
 if this be established, the cprestioir is then decided in favor of the United 
 Slates,” the convenlion between Great Britain and Spain, signed at the Es- 
 ciirial on the 2Sth October, 179U, notwithstanding. 
 
 “If,” says the American plenipotentiary, “it, should appear that this 
 treaty was transient in its very nature; that it conferred upon Great Britain 
 no right but that of merely trading with the Indians, whilst the coimlry 
 .should.remain unsettled, and making the necessary establishments for this 
 purpose; that it did not interfere with the ultimate sovereignty of Spain 
 over the territory; and, above all, that it was annulled by the war between 
 Spain and Great 13ritain,in 1796, and has never since been renewed by the 
 parties—then the British claim to any portion of the territory will prove 
 to be destitute of foundation.” 
 
 The undersigned will endeavor to show, not only that when Spain con¬ 
 cluded with the United States the treaty of 1819, commonly called the 
 Florida treaty, the convention concluded between the former power and 
 Great Britain in 1790, was considered by the parties to it to be still in 
 force, but. even that if no such treaty had ever e.xisted, Great Britain would 
 stand, with reference to a claim to the Oregon territory, in a position at 
 least as flivorable as the United States. 
 
 The treaty of 1790 is not appealed to by the British government, as the 
 American plenipotentiary seems to suppose, as their “main reliance” in the 
 present discussion. It is appealed to to show, that, by the treaty of 1819, 
 by which “Spain ceded to the United Slates all her rights, claims, and 
 pretensions to any territories west of the Rocky momitains and north of 
 the 42d p.arnllel of latitude,” the United States acquired no right to exclu¬ 
 sive dominion over any part of the Oregon territory. 
 
 The treaty of 179U embraced, in litet, a variety of objects. It partook, 
 in some of its stipulations, of the nature of a commercial convention: in 
 other respects, it must be considered as an acknowledgment of existing 
 rights—an admission of certain principles of iniernaiional law not to be re- 
 vdeed at the pleasure of either party, or to he set aside by a cessation of 
 friendly relations between them. 
 
 Viewed in the former light, its stipulations iniglit have been considered 
 as cancelled in consequence of the war which subsequently took place be- 
 
64 
 
 [1] 
 
 tween the coniraciing parties, were it not, that, by the treaty conclncled at 
 Madrid on 2Sth Aiisnst, 1814, it was declared dial all the treaties of eom- 
 iijerce which subsisted beiweeii the two nations (Great Ifritain atid Spain) 
 in 1796 were tlieroby riitified and confirmed. 
 
 In the latter point of view, the restoration of a slate of peace was of 
 itself snilicieiit fo restore the admissiotts coiilaitied in the convenlioti of 
 1791) to their foil origintd force and vigor. 
 
 There are, besides, very positive reasons for conclnding that Spain did 
 not consider the stipul.aions of the Nootka convention to have been re¬ 
 voked by the war of 17915, so as to require, in order to he binding on her, 
 that they should have been expressly revived or retiowed, on the restoration 
 of peace between the two countries. Had Spain considered that conven¬ 
 tion to have been atinnllcd by the war—in other words, had site considered 
 herself restored to her former position and pretensions with re.spect to ex¬ 
 clusive dominion over the nnocettpied parts of tlie North American con- 
 . tinetit—it is not to be imagined that she would have passively submitted to 
 see the contending claims of Great Britain and the United States to a por¬ 
 tion of that territorjr, the subject of negotiation atid formal diplomatic trans¬ 
 actions between those two nations. 
 
 It is, on the contrary, from her siletice witli respect to the continued 
 occupation by the British of their setllomoiils in llie Columbia territory, 
 subsequently to the convention of 181-1 and wlieti as yet there liad been 
 no transfer of her riglils, claims, or pretensions to the United States, and 
 from her silence also wliile important negotiations respecting the Columbia 
 territory, incompaiible allogeiiter with her ancient claim to exclusive do¬ 
 minion, were in progress between Great Britain and the Uniled Stales, fairly 
 to be inferred that Spain considered the siipnlatiotisof tlie Nootka conven¬ 
 tion, and the principio.-i therein laid down, to he still in force. 
 
 But the Americnii plenipotentiary goes so far as to say that tlie British 
 government itself htid no idea, in 1818, that the Nootka Sound convention 
 was then in force, because no reference was made to it on the part of Eng¬ 
 land during the negotiation of that year on the Oregon question. 
 
 In reply to this argument, it will be sufficient for the undersigned to 
 remind the American pleiiipoienliary that in the year 1818 no claim, as 
 derived from Spain, was or could be put forth by tlie United Stales, seeing 
 that it was not until the following year (tlie year 1819) that the treaty, was 
 conclitded by wliich Spain transferred to tlte Uniled States her rights, 
 claims, and pretension.s to any territories West of the Rocky raomitains and 
 north of the 42d parallel of latitude. 
 
 Hence it is obvious that in the year 1818 no occasion liad arisen for 
 appealing to the qualified ntitiire of the rights, claims, and pretensions so 
 transferred—a qualification imposed, or at least recognised, by tlie convention 
 of Nootka. 
 
 The title of the Uniled Stales to the valley of the Ooliimbia, the Ameri¬ 
 can plenipotentiary observes, i.s older than the Florida treaty of February, 
 1819, and exists independently ofits provisions. Even supposing, tlien, that 
 the Britisli cnusiructioii of the Nootka Sound convention was correct, it 
 could not apply to this portion of the territory in dispute. 
 
 The undersigned must btr permitted respectfully to inquire upon what 
 principle, unless it be upon the principle which forms the foundation of the 
 Nootka convention, could the Uniled States have acquired a title to any 
 
65 [13 
 
 part of the Oregon territory previously to the treaty of 1S19, and indepen¬ 
 dently of its provisions? 
 
 By discovery, exploration, settlement, will be the answer. 
 
 But, says the American plenipotentiary in another part of his statement, 
 the. rights of Spain to the west coast of America, as far north as the Cist 
 degree of latitude, were so complete us never to have been seriously cpies- 
 tioned by any European nation: 
 
 ' They liad been maintained by Spain with the most vigilant jealousy ever 
 since the discovery of the American continent, and had been acquiesced in 
 by all European powers. They had been admitted even by Russia ; and 
 that, too, under a sovereign peculiarly tenacious of the territorial rights of 
 her empire, who, when complaints had been made to the court of Russia 
 against Russian subjects, for violating the Spanish territory on the north¬ 
 west coast of America, did not hesitate to assure the king of Spain that she 
 W'as extremely sorry that the repeated orders, issued to prevent the subjects 
 of Russia from violating in the smallest degree the territory belonging to 
 another power, should have been disobeyed. 
 
 In what did this alleged violation of territory consist ? Assuredly in 
 some attempted acts of discovery, exploration, or settlement. 
 
 At that lime Russia stood in precisely the same position with reference 
 to the exclusive rights of Spain as ilie United Stales; and any acts in con¬ 
 travention of those rights, whether einanaiing from Russia or from the 
 United States, would hece.'^sarily be judged by one and the same rule. 
 
 How, then, can it be pretended that acts which, in the case of Russia, 
 wore considered as criminal violation of the Spanish territory', should, in 
 the case of citizens of the United States, be appealed teas conslitiuiiig a 
 valid title to the territory affected by them? And yet, from this inconsistency 
 the American plenipoiciitiary cannot escape, if he persists in considering the 
 American title to have been perfected by discovery, exploration, and settle¬ 
 ment, when as yet Spain had made no transfer of lier rights, if, to use his 
 own words, “that title is' older than the Florida treaty,and exists inde¬ 
 pendently of its provisions.” 
 
 According to the doctrine of e.xclnsive doniinion, the exploration of 
 Lewis and Clarke, and the establishment founded at the mouth of the Co- 
 {itnibia, must be eotidemtied as encroachments on tiie territorial rights of 
 Spain. 
 
 According to the opposite principle, l.y which discovery, exploration, and 
 settlement are considered as giving a valid claim to tei ritory, those very acts 
 are referred to, in the course of the same paper, as consiiiming a complete 
 title in fiivor of the United Slates. 
 
 Besides, how shall we reconcile this high estimniinn of the territorial 
 righls of Spain, considered independently of the Kooika Sound convcniion, 
 with tile course ob.served by the United States in their diplomatic transac- 
 Ciotis with Great Britain, previnnsly to the conclusion of the Florida treaty? 
 The claim advanced for the restitution of Fort George, under the first arti¬ 
 cle of the treaty of Ghent, the arraiigenient conclncled for the joint occu¬ 
 pation of the Oregon ferrilorv by Great Britaiti and the Uniled Slates, and, 
 above all, the proposal aclnaily made on the part ol the United Slates for a 
 partition of the Oregon territory—-all whicit traiisaclions took place in the 
 year ISIS, wium, as yet, Spam hiul mode no iraiisfi'r or cession of her 
 lights—appear to be as little r; bis 
 
 while still vested in Spain, as the claim founded on discovery, cxp|,oi-;uien, 
 
[1 J 66 
 
 nnd seitlement accomplished previously to the transfer of those rights to the 
 United States. 
 
 Supposing the arrangemeut proposed in the year 1818, or any other ar¬ 
 rangement, Ibr the partition of the Oregon territory, to have been conclu¬ 
 ded in those days brtween Gretit Brittiin and this country, what would, in 
 that case, have become of the exclusive rights of Spain 1 
 
 'There would have been no reltige for the United States but in an appeal 
 to the principles of the Kootka convention. 
 
 To deny, then, the validity of the Nootka convention, is to proclaim the 
 illegality of any title founded on discovery, exploration, or settlement pre¬ 
 vious to the concltisioti of the Florida treaty. 
 
 To appeal, to the Florida treaty as conveying to the United States any 
 e.xclnsive rights, is to attach a character of encroachment and of violation of 
 the rights of Spain to every act to which the United States appealed in the 
 negotiation of 1818, as giving them a claim to territory on the northwest 
 coast. 
 
 These conclusions appear, to the undersigned to be irresistible. 
 
 The United States can found no claim on discovery, exploration, and 
 setlleiiient effected previously to the Florida treaty, without admitting the 
 principles of the Nootka convention, and the consequent validity of the 
 parallel claims of Great Britain founded on like acts ; nor can they appeal 
 to any exclusive riglit as acquired by the Florida treaty, without upsetting 
 all claims adduced in their own proper right, by reason of discovery, explo- 
 ralinn, and selileineiii aiiiecedeni to thai arrangement. 
 
 'The undersigned tru.sts that he has now shown that the convention of 
 179(1 (the Nootka Sound convention) has continued in full and complete 
 force up to the present moment— 
 
 By reason, in the first place, of the commercial character of some of its 
 provisions, as such expressly renewed by the convention of August, 1814, 
 between Great Britain and Spain ;— 
 
 By reason, in the, next place, of the acquiescence of Spain in various 
 transactions, to which it is not to be supposed that that power would have 
 assented, had she not felt bound by the provisions of the convention in 
 question;— 
 
 And, thirdly, by reason of repeated acts of the government of the United 
 States, previous to the conclusion of the Florida treaty, manifesting adfre- 
 rence to the principles of the Nootka convention, or at least dissent from 
 the exclusive pretensions of Spain. 
 
 Having thus replied—and he hopes satisfactorily—to the observations of 
 the American plenipotentiary with respect to the effect of the Nootka 
 Sound convention, and the Florida treaty, as bearing upon the subject of 
 the present discussion, the undersigned must endeavor to show that even 
 if the Nootka Sound convention had never existed, the position of Great 
 Britain in regard to her claim, whether to the whole or to any particular por¬ 
 tion of the Oregon territory, is at least as good as that of the United States. 
 
 This branch of the subject must be considered, first, with reference to 
 principle-to the right of either party. Great Britain or the United States, 
 to explore or make settlements in the Oregon territory, without violation of 
 the rights of Spain; and next, supposing the first to be decided affirma¬ 
 tively, with reference to the relative value nnd importance of the acts of 
 discovery, exploration, and settlements effected by each. 
 
 As relates to the question of principle, the undersigned thinks he can 
 furnish no bettor argument than that contained in the following words, 
 
67 [1] 
 
 wliich lie has already once quoted from the statement of the American 
 plenipotentiary: 
 
 “The title of the United States to the valley of the Coliimliia is older 
 than the Florida treaty of February, 1819, under which the United Slates 
 acquired all the rights of Spain to the uortliwesi const of America, and 
 exists independently of its provisions.” And again, “the title of the United 
 States to the entire region drained by the Coliimbia river and its branches 
 was perfect and complete before the date of the treaties of joint occupancy 
 of October, 1818, and August, 1827” 
 
 The Hill! thus referred to nmsi be that resting on discovery, expldation, 
 and setileiut lit. 
 
 If this title, then, is good, or rather wn.s good, as against tlic exclusive 
 preleii-siuns of Spain, previoii.sly to the eoncliision of the Florida treaty, so 
 must the claims of Great Britain, resting on the .same grounds, be good also. 
 
 Thus, then, it seeiirs rnanilcst that, with or without llie aid of tire 
 Nootka Soiiiid coiiveiitioii, the claims of Great Britain resting on dis¬ 
 covery, exploration, and seliliiment, are, in point of principle, equally valid 
 with those of iiic United States. 
 
 Let IIS now see how the comparison will stand when tried by the rela¬ 
 tive value, importance, and nntlieiUiciiy of each. 
 
 Rejecting previous discoveries nnrili of the 43d parallel of Iniitnde as not 
 snllicicailv authenticated, it will he seen, on the side of Great Britain, that 
 in 1773 O.iptaiii (iook di.scovered Cape Flattery, the sonthern eiilratice of 
 the Straits of Fnca. Cook must also be considered the discoverer of 
 Nootka Sound, in consequence of the want of amlicinicily in tlie alleged 
 previon.s discovery of that port by Perez. 
 
 ill Us/, i/apiaiii Berkeley, a British subject, in a vessel under Ati.striaii 
 colors, discovered llie Strait of Fnca. 
 
 Ill me same vear. Captain Duncan, in the.ship “Princess Royal,” entered 
 the straits and traded at llie village of Classet. 
 
 In l7sS, Meares, a British subject, forn.ed tl'.c estahlishnieiit at Nootka 
 which gave rise to the memornhle discussion with the Spanish government, 
 ending in the recognition, by that power, of the right of Great Britain to 
 firm seitlenieiiis in the mioecnpied part.s of the northwest portion of the 
 American eoiiiinent, and ill an engagement, on die part of Spain, to reinstate 
 Meares in the possession from wiiicli he lud bee i ejected by the Spanish 
 commanders. 
 
 In 1792, Ynneonver, who had been sent from Kiiglaiid to witness the 
 fulfilment of the above mentioned engagement, and to efteet a .survey of 
 the northwest coast, departing from Nootka Sound, entered the Straits of 
 Fnca, and after an accurate survey of the coasts and inleis on bfrih .sides, 
 discovered a passage northwards into the Pacific, by whicli he returned to 
 Nootka, iiaving thus circumnavigated the island which now bears his 
 name. And here we have, as far as relate.s to Vancouver’s island, as com¬ 
 plete a case 'It discovery, exploration, and .setilemeni. as can well he pre¬ 
 sented, giving to Great Britain, in any arraiiganient that may he made with 
 regard to the'terriiory in dispute, the strongest possible claim to tlie exclu¬ 
 sive po.ssfts.sion of that i.shind. 
 
 While Vaiiconvor was prosecuting discovery and exploration by -sen, Sir 
 Alexander Mackenzie, a partner in the. Norlhwe-t Gotnpany, cros-ed the 
 ■Rocky mountains, discovered the head waters of the river since called Fr.-;- 
 zer’s river, atid, following for some lime the conr.ro of that river, eliccled ii 
 passage tc’the sea.; being the first civilized man who traversed the coniiiient 
 
68 
 
 [1] 
 
 of America from sea (o sea in those latitudes. On the return of Macken¬ 
 zie to Canada, the Northwest Company established trading posts in the coun¬ 
 try to the westward of the Rocky mountains. 
 
 In ISOti and 1811, respectively, the same company established posts on 
 the Tacoutche TessA and the Columbia. 
 
 In the year 1811, Thompson, the astronomer of the Northwest Company, 
 discovered the northern head waters of the Columbia, and, following its 
 course till joined by the rivers previously discovered by Lewis and Clarke, 
 he continued his journey to the Pacific. 
 
 From that time until the year 1818, when the arrangement for the joint 
 occupancy of the territory was concluded, the Northwest Company contin¬ 
 ued to extend their operations throughout the Oregon territory, and to “ oc¬ 
 cupy,” it may be said, as far as occupation can be effected in regions so in¬ 
 accessible and destitute of resources. 
 
 While all this was passing, the following events occurred, which consti¬ 
 tute the American claim in their own proper right. 
 
 In 1792 Gray entered the mouth of the Columbia river. 
 
 In 1805 Lewis and Clarke effected a passage across the Rocky ntoun- 
 tains, and, discovering a branch of the Columbia river, followed it until 
 they reached the ocean. 
 
 In 1811 the trading post or settlement of Astoria was established at the 
 mouth of the Columbia, on the southern side of that river. 
 
 This post or settlement passed, during the last war, into British hands, 
 by the voluntary act of the persons in charge of it—a fact most clearly es¬ 
 tablished. It was restored to the United Slates in 1818, with certain well 
 authenticated reservations; but it was never actually reoccupied by Ameri¬ 
 can citizens, having, from the moment of the original transfer or sale, con¬ 
 tinued to be occupied by British subjects. 
 
 These are the acts of discovery, exploration, and settlement referred to 
 by the United Slates as giving them a claim to the valley of the Columbia, 
 in their own proper right. 
 
 The British government are disposed to view them in the most liberal 
 sense, and to give to them the utmost value to which they cun in fairness 
 be entitled; but there are circumstances attending each and all of them 
 which must, in the opinion of any impartial investigator of the subject, 
 take from tliem a great deal of the effect which the American negotiators 
 assign to them, as giving to this country a claim to the entire region drain¬ 
 ed by the Columbia and its branches. 
 
 In the first place, as relates to the discovery of Gray, it must be remark¬ 
 ed that he was a private navigator, sailing principally for the purposes of 
 trade; which fact establishes a wide difference, in a national point of view, 
 between the discoveries accomplished by him and those effected by Cook 
 and Vancouver, who sailed in ships of the royal navy of Great Britain, and 
 who were sent to the northwest coast for the express purpo.se of exploration 
 and discovery. 
 
 In the ne.xt place, it is a circumstance not to be lost sight of, that it was 
 not for several years followed up by any act which could give it value in a 
 national point of view ; it was not in truth made known to the world, ei¬ 
 ther by the discoverer liimself or by his government. So recently ns the 
 year 1820, tlie American plenipotentiaries in London remarked, with great 
 <'..rioctne.s-, in one of their reports, that, “ respeciingthu inoiith of the Co¬ 
 lumbia river, wo know nothing of Gray’s discoveries but through British 
 accounts.” 
 
In the next place, the connexion of Gray’s discovery with that of Lewis 
 and Clarke is interrupted by the intervening exploration of Liumenant 
 Broughton, of the British surveying ship “ Chatham.” 
 
 With respect to the expedition of Lewis and Clarke, it must, on a close 
 examination of the route pursued by them, be confessed that neither on their 
 outward journey to the Pacific, nor on their homeward journey to the Uni¬ 
 ted States, did they lotich upon the head waters of the principal branch of 
 the Columbia river, which lie far to the north of the parts of liie country 
 traversed and explored bf them. 
 
 Thompson, of the British Northwest Company, was the first civilized 
 person who navigated the northern (in reality the main) branch of the Co- 
 himbia, or traversed any part of the country drained by it. 
 
 It was by a tributary of the Columbia that Lewis and Clarke made their 
 way to the main stream of that river, which they reached at a point distant, 
 it is believed, not more than two hundred miles from the point to which 
 the river had already been exjilored by Broughton. 
 
 The.se facts, the untlersigned conceives, will be found sufficient to re¬ 
 duce the value of Lewis and Clarke’s e.xploration on the Columbia to limits 
 which would by no means justify a claim to the- whole valley drained by 
 that river and its brnnehas. 
 
 As to settlement, the qualified nature of the rights devolved to the United 
 States by virtue of the restitution of Port Astor ia has already been pointed 
 
 out. 
 
 It will thus be seen, the nndersigiied confidently believes, that, on the 
 groundsofdiscovery,exploration,and.setllemeni,Great Britain has nothing 
 to fear from a comparison of her claims to the Oregon territory, taken as a 
 whole, with those of the United Slates;— 
 
 That, reduced to the valley drained by the Columbia, the facts on which 
 the United States rest their case are fur from being of that com|)lele and 
 exclusive character which would justify a claim to the whole valley of the 
 Columbia ; and ibal, especially as relates to Vancouver’s i.slaud, taken by 
 itself, the preferable claim of Great Britain, in every point of view, seems 
 to have been clearly demonstrated. 
 
 After this exposition of the views entertained by the British government 
 respecting the relative value and importnnoo of the British and American 
 claims, llie American plenipotentiary will not ho surprised to hear tliat the 
 undersigned does not teel at liberty to accept the propo.sai oliered by the 
 American plenipotentiary for the settlement of llie question. 
 
 This proposal, in fact, offers fcs.s than that tendered by the American 
 plcnipotoniiaries in the negotiation of lS2(j, and declined by the British 
 government. 
 
 . On that occasion it was proposed that the navigation of the Columbia 
 sliould he made free to both parties. 
 
 On this, nntbing is said in the proposal to wbicli the undersigned has 
 now the honor to reply; while, with respect to the proposed freedom of 
 the ports on Vancouver’s island, sonti) of latitude 49°, the facts wliicb have 
 been appealed to in this paper, as giving to Great Britain the strongest 
 claim to the posse.ssion of the whole i.slaiid, would seem to deprive such a 
 proposal of any valtie. 
 
 The undersigned, therefore, trusts that the American plenipotentiary will 
 be prepared to offer some further proposal for the settlement of the Oregon 
 question more consistent with fairness and equity, and with tlie reasonable 
 
70 
 
 [1] 
 
 expectations of the Biitish gjovernraent, as defined in the statement niarlcnd 
 D, whicli the undersiirned had the honor to present to the Ainericnii pleni. 
 potentiary at the early part of the present negotiation. 
 
 Tlie niiilersianed, British plenipotentiary, has the horror to renew to the. 
 honorable James Bnchanan, Secretary ol State arrd plenipote.tttiary of the 
 United States, the ussnrattce of his high cotrsideration. 
 
 R. PAKEiSlIAM. 
 
 Hon. jAMtts Buchanan, 
 
 ^•C..5^C.r5-c. 
 
 J. B. 2. 
 
 Departs! tJHT of St.atr, 
 
 Washinglon, August oO, I8'15. 
 
 The nndersigned, Secretary of State of the Urrited States, deems it bis 
 duty to make some observations in reply to tire statement of her Britarittic 
 majesty’s envoy extraordinary and mttrtsier plenipotentiary, marked R. P., 
 and dated 2!)ih July, IS 15. 
 
 Preliminary to the discussion, it is necessary to fix onr attention npon 
 the precise question under consideration, in the present stage of the tiego- 
 tiation. Tins qnestion .simply is, were the titles of Spain "and the United 
 Slates, when nnited by the h’loricla treaty on the 22d of Febrniiry, 1819, 
 good, as against Great Britain, to the Oregon territory as far nortii as the 
 Rnsstiin line, in the latitude of 54° 40'? If they were, it will be adniiiled 
 that tlii.s whole territory nov.' belongs to the United Slates. 
 
 The undersigned again remarks, that it is not his pnipose to repeat the 
 argument by which his predecessor, Mr. Calhoun, has demonstrated the 
 American title " to the entire region diaiiied by the Columbia river and its 
 branches.” He will not thus impair its force. 
 
 It is contended, on the part of Great Britain, that the United States ac¬ 
 quired and hold the Spanish title, snhject to the terms and conditions of the 
 Nootka Sound convention, concinded between Great Britain and Spain, at 
 the Esenriai, on the 28ili October, 1790. 
 
 In opposition to the argument of the iindersigni d, contained in his state¬ 
 ment marked .1. B., maintaining that this convention had been aimnlled Dy 
 the war between Spain and Great Britain in 179b, and has never since been 
 revived by the parties, the British plenipotentiary, in his statement marked 
 R. P., Inis taken the following posilions: 
 
 1. “ That when Spain concinded with the United Stales the treaty of 
 1819, commonly called the Florida treaty, the convention concinded be¬ 
 tween the former power and Great Britain in 1790 was considered by the 
 parlies to it to he still in force.” And, 
 
 2. ” Bill that even if no such treaty had ever e.xisted, Great Britain 
 would stand, with relerence to a claim to the Oregon lerritorv. in aposition 
 at least as (avnrnble ns the United Slates.” 
 
 The nndersijjiicd will follow, step by step, the argument of the British 
 pleniroieiiiiary in support of these, iiropositioiis. 
 
 The British plenipotentiary states, that “the treaty of 1790 is not ap- 
 .pealed to liy the British government, as the American plenipolenliary seems 
 to suppose, as their ‘ main reliance ’ in the present discussion,” bnt to show 
 
71 [1] 
 
 that by the Florida treaty of 1819, the United Stales acquired no right to 
 • exclusive dominion over any part of the Oregon territory. 
 
 The undersigned had believed that ever since 1826 the Nootka convention 
 has been regarded by the British governm ’tit as their main, if not their on¬ 
 ly reliance. The very nature and peculiarity of their claim identified it 
 with the construction which they have imposed upon tliis convention, and 
 necessarily exclude every other basis of title. What, but to accord with 
 this construction, could have caused Messrs. Huskisson and Addington, the 
 British commissioners, in specifying their tide, on the liiih Uecember, 1S26, 
 to declare that “Great Britain claims no exclusive sovereignty over any 
 portion of that territory: her present claim, not in respect to any part, 
 but to the whole, is limited to a right of joint occupancy m common with 
 other States, leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abeyance?” And 
 again : “ By that convention (of Nootka) it was agreed that all parts of the 
 northwestern coast of America, not already occupied at that time by cither 
 of the contracting parties, should thenceforward be equally open to the 
 subjects of both, for all pnrpo.ses of commerce and settlement; the sover¬ 
 eignty remaining in abeyance.” But on this subject wo are not left to 
 naere inferences, however clear. The British comnnsstoners, m their state¬ 
 ment from which the undersigned has just quoted, have virtually abandon¬ 
 ed any other title which Great Britain may have previously asserted to the 
 territory in dispute, and expressly declare, “ that whatever that title may 
 have been, however, either on the part of Great Britain or on the part of 
 Spain, prior to the convention of 1790, it mis t/wiicel'nrward no loni'ii- to 
 . be traced in vaoue narratives of discoveries, several of them admiued. to 
 M afiocnjphal, but in the text and stijiidatioiis of that convention itself. ” 
 And again, in summing up their whole case, they say: “Adinitiing that 
 the United States have acquired all the rights which Spain possessed up to 
 the treaty of Florida, cither in virtue of discovery, or, as is pretended, in 
 right of Louisiana, Great Britain maintains that the nature and extent of 
 these rights, as well as of the rights of Great Britain, are fl.xed and defined 
 by the convention of Nootka,” ifcc. &c. &c. 
 
 The undersifftied, after a careful examination, can discover nothing in 
 the note of the present British plenipotentiary to Mr. Oalhoun of the 12th 
 September last, to impair the f irce of these declarations and admissions of 
 his predecessors. On the conti-ury, its general tone is in perfect accordance 
 with them. 
 
 Whatever may he the consequences, then, whether for good or for evil— 
 whether to strengthen or to destroy the British claim—it is now loo late 
 for the British government to vary their position. If the Nooika conven¬ 
 tion confers upon them no such rights as they claim, they cannot m this 
 late hour go behind its provisions and set up claims which, in 1826, they 
 admitted had been merged “in the text and stipulations of that convention 
 itself” 
 
 The iindcrsisined regrets that the British plenipotentiary has not noticed 
 his exposition of the true coiisiruction of the Nootka convention. He had 
 endeavored, and he believes sucee.ssfully, to prove that this treaty was iraii- 
 . sient in its very nature; that ilconf rred upon Great Briiain no right hut 
 
 ■ that of merely trading with the Indians whil.-it the country shoiild remain 
 unsetih'd, and making the necessary establishments fortius purpose; and 
 that it did not interfere with l-he nhimate sovereignly of Spain over ilie ler- 
 
 ■ ritory. The British plenipotentiary has nut ntteiiiptcd to resist these con- 
 
72 
 
 [1] 
 
 elusions. If they be fair and Icgiliinate, then it would not avail Great Brit- 
 aiiii even if she could prove the Nootlra convention to be still in force. On 
 tlio contrary, tiiis convention, if the construction placed upon it by the un¬ 
 dersigned be correct, contains a clear virtual admission on the part of 
 Great Britain, that Spain held the eventual right of sovereignty over the 
 wh.ole disputed territory, and, consequently, that it now belongs to the Uni¬ 
 ted States. 
 
 The value of this admission, made in 1790, is the same, whether or not 
 the conveniion has continued to exist until the present day. But he is 
 willing to leave this point on the nncontroverted argument contained in his 
 IbrmiT statement. 
 
 But is the iNootka Sound convention still in force 1 The British plenipo¬ 
 tentiary does not contest the clear general principle of public law, “that 
 war terminates all subsisting treaties between the belligerant powers.” He 
 contends, however, in the'first place, that this convention is partly com¬ 
 mercial ; and that, so far as it partakes of this character, it was revived by 
 llio treaty concluded at Madrid on the 2Slh Angnst, 1814, which declares 
 “ that all the treaties of commerce which subsisted between the two parties 
 (Great Britain and Spain) in 1790, were thereby ratified and confirmed 
 and, 2d, “that in other respects it must be considered as an acknowledg¬ 
 ment of subsisting rights—an admission of certain principles of iriterna- 
 lional law,” not to he revoked by war. 
 
 In regard to the first proposition, tire undersigned is satisfied to leave the 
 question to rest upon his former argument, as the Brili-slr plenipotentiary 
 has contented hiin.self with merely asserting the fact, that the commercial 
 portion of the Honika Sound conveniion was revived by the treaty of 1814, 
 without even specifying what he considers to. be that portion of that con¬ 
 vention. If lire midersigned liad desired to strengthen liis former position, 
 he, might have repeated with great effect the argument contained in the 
 note of Lord Aberdeen to the Duke of Solomayor, dated 30th June, 1845, 
 in whicli his lordship clearly estahlishcci, that all the treaties of commerce 
 subsisting between Groat Britain and Spain previous to 1790, were confined 
 to the trade with Spain idone, and did not embrace her colonies and re¬ 
 mote |)ossessions. 
 
 The second proposition of the British plenipotentiary deserves greater 
 attention. Docs the Noolka Sound convention belong to that class oi 
 treaties containing “ an acknowledgment »f subsisting rights—an admission 
 of certain principles of international law” not to he abrogated by war? 
 Had Spam l>y this convention ackiiowiedged the right of all nations to 
 make discoveries, plant settlements, and establish colonies, on the north¬ 
 west coast of America, bringing with them their sovereign .jiirisdictioB, 
 there would then have been much force in the argument. But such an 
 admission never was made, and never was intended to be made, by Spain. 
 The Nootka convention is arbitrary and artificial in the higlurst degree, 
 and is any thing rather than the mere acknowledgment of sim])le and 
 elementary principles consecrated bv the law of nations. In all its pro¬ 
 visions it is expressly confined to Great Britain and Snain, and acknow¬ 
 ledges no right whatever in any third power to interfere with the northwest 
 coast of Aureriea. Neither in its terms, nor in its essence, does it contain 
 any acknowledgment of previously subsisting territorial rights in Great 
 Britain or any other nation. It is strictly confined to future eugagenients, 
 and these are of a most peculiar character. Even under the con.siruction 
 of its provi-sioiis maintained by Great Britain, her claim does not extend to 
 
73 [13 
 
 plant colonies, which she would have had a right to do under the law of 
 nations, had the country been unappropriated ; but it is limited to a mere 
 right of joint occupancy, not in respect to any part, but to the whole, the 
 sovereignty remaining in abeyance. And to what kind of occupancy? 
 Not separate and distinct colonies, but scattered settlements, intsrminiiled 
 with each other over the whole surface of the territory, for the single pur¬ 
 pose of trading with the Indians, to all of which the subjects of each power 
 should have free access, the right of exclusive dominion remaining sus¬ 
 pended. Surely it cannot be successfully contended that sucli a treaty is 
 “ an admission of certain principles of international law,” so sacred and so 
 perpetual in their nature as not to be annulled by war. On tiio contrary, 
 from the character of its provisions, it cannot be supposed for a single mo¬ 
 ment that it was intended f)r any purpose but that of a mere temporary 
 arrangement between Great Britain and Spain. The law of nations recog¬ 
 nises no such principles in regard to unappropriated territory as those em¬ 
 braced in this treaty; and the British plenipotentiary must fail in the 
 attempt to prove, that it contains “an admission of certain principles of 
 international law” which will .survive the shock of war. 
 
 But the British plenipotentiary contends, that from the silence of Spain 
 during the negotiations of 181S, between Great Britain and l! e United 
 Slates, respecting the Oregon territory, as well as “from her silence with 
 respect to the continued occupation by the. British of their settlements in 
 the Columbia territory, siihsequoiitly to tiie convciitioii of 1814,” it may 
 fairly “be inferred that Spain considered the .stipulations of the Nootka 
 convention, and the principles therein laid down, to he still in force." 
 
 The undersigned cannot imaginea case where the obligations of a treaty, 
 once extinguished by war, can be revived, without a positive agreement to 
 this efl'ect helween the parties. Even if both parties, after the conclusion 
 of peace, shonid perform positive and unequivocal acts in accordance with 
 its provisions, these must he construed as merely voluntary, to be discoii- 
 liiiued hy either at plea.sure. But, in the present case, it is not even pro¬ 
 tended that Spain performed any net it! accordance with the convention of 
 Nootka Sound, after her treaty with Great Britain of 1814. Her mere 
 silence is relied upon to revive that convention. 
 
 Tlie niider.sigiied asserts confidently, that neither by public nor private 
 law will the mere silence of one party, whilst another is encroaching upon 
 his righi.s, even if he had knowledge of thi.s encroachment, deprive him of 
 ihe.se righi.s. If this principle he correct as applied to individuals, it holds 
 with much greater force in regard to nations. The feeble may not be in 
 a condition to complain against the powerful, and thus the encroachment 
 of the strong would convert itself into a perfect title against the weak. 
 
 Ill the prcsiMit case, it was scarcely possible for Spain even to have 
 learned the pendency of negotiations between the United States and Groat 
 Britain, in relation to the northwest coast of America, before she had ceded 
 all her rights on that coast to the former, by the Florida treaty of 22d 
 February, 1819. The convention of joint occupation between the United 
 States and Great Britain, was not signed at London until the 20th October. 
 1818, but four ijioiitiis previous to the dale of the Florida treaty; and the 
 ratifications were not exchanged and the convention publisnea iinul the 
 oQlli of.Iamiary, 1819. 
 
 Besides, the negotiations which terminated in the Florida treaty had 
 been commenced as early as December, 1816, and were in full progress on 
 the 20th October, 1818, when the convention was signed between Great 
 
74 
 
 £1] 
 
 Britain and the Cnited Slates. It does not apppar, llierefnie, that Spain 
 had any knowledge of the existence of these tiegoiialions; and even if this 
 were olherwi.se, she would have had no motive to complain, as she was 
 in the very act of transferring all her rights to the Uoileil Staie.s. 
 
 But, says the British plenipotentiary, Spain looked in silence on the con¬ 
 tinued occupation, by the British, of the settlements in the I 'ohimhia terri¬ 
 tory snbseiiuently to the convention of 1814, and therefore she considered 
 the Nontka Sound convention to be still in force. The period of this 
 silence, so far as it could affect Spain, commenced on the aSih day of August, 
 1814—the date of the additional articles to the treaty of Mailrid—and ter- 
 ^minated on the 23d February, 1819, the date of the Florida treaty. Is 
 there the least reason, from this silence, to infer an admission by Spain of 
 the continued existence of the Nootka Sound convention'' In the first 
 place, this convention was entirely confined “ to landing on the coasts of 
 those seas, in places not already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on 
 their commerce with the natives of the country, or of making seitlemenis 
 there.” It did notextend to the interior. ,4t the date of this convention, 
 no person dreamed that British traders from Canada, or Hudson’s Bay, 
 would cross the Rocky mountains and encroach on the rights ot Spain from 
 that quarter. Great Britain had never made any seltleinent on the north¬ 
 western coast of America, from the date of the Nootka Sound convention, 
 until the 22d of P’ebruary, 1819 ; nor, so far as the undersigned is inform¬ 
 ed, has she done so down to the present moment. Spam could noi there¬ 
 fore have complained of any such settlement. In regard to the encr. ach- 
 menls which had been made from the interior hy the Northwest Company, 
 neither Spain nor the rest of the world had any specific krnnvhdge of their 
 existence. But even if the British plenipoleniiary had hrongi.t snc.li knowl¬ 
 edge home to her, which he has not utiempied, siic had been cxhansled hy 
 one long and bloody war, and was then engaged in aiiniher with her colo¬ 
 nies, and was besides negotiating for a transfer of all her rights on the 
 north western coast of America to the United States. Sttrely, these-were 
 sufficient reasons for her silence, without inferring from it that she ticqui- 
 esced in the continued existence of the Nootka convention. If Spaitt had 
 enteriained the least idea that the Nootka convention was .still iti lorce, her 
 good faith and her national honor would Imve catised her to communicate 
 this fttci to the United States before she had ceded this territory to ihent for 
 an ample consideration. Not the least intimaiion of the kind was ever 
 coniniiinic.aied. 
 
 Like Great Britain in 1818, Spain in 1819 had no idea that the Nootka 
 Sound coiiveiitioa was in force. It had then passed away, atid was for¬ 
 gotten. 
 
 The British plenipotentiary alleges, that the reason why Great Britain 
 did not as.scrt the existence of the Nootka convention, during the negolia- 
 lioiis between the two governments in 1818, was, that no occasion had arisen 
 for Us interposition; the American government not having limn acquired 
 the Mile of Spain. It is very true that the United States had not then ac¬ 
 quired the. Spanish title; but is it possible to imagine that ihroiiglioui the 
 whole, negotiation the British commissioners, had they uippnse.d this con. 
 vention to have been in existence, would have remained emireiv silent in 
 regard to a treaty which, as Great Britain now alleges, gave her e(|ual and 
 co-ordinate rights with Spain to the whole northwest coast ol America'? 
 At that [lerioiJ, Great Britain confined her churns to those arising from dis¬ 
 covery and purchase from the Indians. How vastly she could have 
 
75 
 
 [1] 
 
 strengthened these claims, had she then supposed theKoolka convention to 
 be in force, with her present construction ot its provisions. Even in 1S24 
 it was first introduced into the negotiation, not by her commissioners, but by 
 Mr. Rush, the American plenipotentiary. 
 
 Blit the British plenipotentiary argues, that “the United States can 
 found no claim on discovery, exploration, and settlement, effected previnus- 
 ly to the Florida treaty, without admitting the principles of the Nootka 
 ■convention “ nor can they appeal to any exclusive right as acquired by 
 the Florida treaty', without upsetting all claims adduced in their own pro¬ 
 per right by reason of discovery, exploration, and settlement, antecedent to 
 that arrangement.” 
 
 This is a most ingenious method of making two distinct and indepen¬ 
 dent titles, held by the same nation worse than one; of arraying them 
 against each other, and thus destroying the validity of both. Does he for¬ 
 get that the United Sia'es own bntli these titles, and can wield them either 
 separately or conjointly against the claim of Great Britain at their pleasure? 
 From the course of his remarks, it might be supposed that Great Britain, 
 and not the United States, had acquired the Spanish title under the Florida 
 treaty. But Great Britain is a third party: an entire stranger to both these 
 titles ; and has no right whatever to marshal the one against the other. 
 
 By what authority can Great Britain interpose in this manner? Was it 
 \ ever imagined, in any court of justice, that the acqiiisttioii of a new title 
 destroyed the old one ; and, vice versa, that the purchase of the old title de¬ 
 stroyed the new one? In a question of mere private right, it would be 
 considered absurd if a stranger to both titles should say to the parly who 
 had madeasettlement—-You shall not avail yourself of your possession, be¬ 
 cause this was taken in violation of another outstanding title ; and although 
 I must admit that voii have also acquired this onisianding title, yet even 
 this shall avail yon nothing; because, having taken possession previously 
 to your purchase, you thereby evinced that you did not regard such title as 
 valid And yet such is the mode by which the British plenipotentiary has 
 attempted to destroy both the American and Spanish title. On the contrary, 
 in the case mentioned, the possession and the outstanding tide being united 
 in the same individual, these conjoined would be as perfect us if both had 
 been vested in him from the beginning. 
 
 The undersigned, whilst strongly asserting both these titles, and believ¬ 
 ing each of them separately to be good, as against Great Britain, has stu¬ 
 diously avoided instituting any comparison between them. But, admitting, 
 for the sake of the argument merely, that the discovery hy Captain Gray of 
 the mouih of the Columbia, its exploration by Lewis and Clarke, and the 
 settlement upon its banks at Astoria, were encroachments on Spain, she, and 
 she alone, had a right to complain. Great Britain was a third party; and 
 as such had no right to interfere in the question between Spain and the 
 United States. But Spain, instead of complaining of these acts as encroach¬ 
 ments, on the 22d February, 1819, by the Florida treaty, transferred her 
 whole title to the United States. From that moment all possihle, conflict 
 between the two titles was ended, both being united in the same party. 
 Two titles which might have conflicted, therefore, were thus blended to¬ 
 gether. 'I'lie title now vested in the United States is just ns sirnng us 
 though every act of discovery, exploration, and settlement, on the part of 
 both powers, had been performed by Spain alone before she had transfer¬ 
 red all her rights to the United States. The two powers are one in this 
 respect; the two titles are one; and, as the undensigned will show here- 
 
76 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 after, they serve to confirm and strenothen each other. If Great Britain, 
 instead of the United Slates, had acquired the title of Spain, she might 
 have contended that those acts of the United States were encroachments; 
 but, standing in the attitude of a stranger to both titles, she has no right to 
 interfere in the matter. 
 
 The undersigned deems it unnecessary to pnrsne this branch of the sub¬ 
 ject further than to state that the United States, before they had acquired the 
 title of Spain, always treated that title with respect. In the negotiation of 
 1818, the American plenipotentiaries “ did not assert that the United States 
 had a perfect right to that country, but insisted that their claim was at 
 least good against Great Britain iind the convention of October 20, 1818, 
 unliltc that of Nootlcii Sound, “ reserved the claims of any other power or 
 State to any part of the said country.” This reservation could have been 
 intended for Spain alone. But ever since the United States acquired the 
 Spanish title, they have always asserted and maintained their right in the 
 strongest terms up to the Russian line, even whilst oflering, for the sake of 
 harmony and peace, to divide the territory in dispute by the 49th parallel of 
 latitude. 
 
 The British plenipotentiary, then, has entirely failed to sustain his posi¬ 
 tion that the United Stales can found no claim on discovery, e.fplora'tion, 
 and settlement, without admitting the principles of the Nootka convention. 
 'J'hat convention died on the commencement of the war between Spain a|i,d 
 England in 179(5, and has never since been revived. 
 
 The British plenipotentiary ne.vt ‘'endeavors to prove that even if the 
 Nootka Sound convention had never existed, the position of Great Britain 
 in regard to her chiiiii, whether to the whole or to any particular portion of 
 the Oregon territory, is at least as good as that'of the United Stales.” In 
 order to establish this position, he must show that the British claim is equal 
 in validity to the titles both of Spain and the United States. These can 
 never now he separated. They are one and the same. Different and di¬ 
 verging as they may have been before the Florida treaty, they are now 
 blended together and identified. The separate discoveries, explorationsi.and 
 settlements of the two powers, previous to that date, must now be consider¬ 
 ed as if they had all been made by the United States alone. Under this 
 palpable view of the subject, the undersigned was surprised to find that in 
 the comparison and contrast instituted by the British plenipotentiary be¬ 
 tween the claim of Great Britain and that of the United States, he had 
 entirely omitted to refer to the discoveries, explorations, and settlements 
 made by Spain. The undersigned will endeavor to supply liie omission. 
 
 But before he proceeds to the main argument on thi.s- point, he feels him¬ 
 self constrained to express his surprise that the British plenipotentiary 
 should again hav.r invoked, in support of the British title, the inconsisienoy 
 between the Spanish and American branches of the title of the United Stales. 
 The undersigned cannot forbear to congratulate himself upon the fact, that 
 a gentleman of Mr. Pakenham’s acknowledged ability has been reduced to 
 the necessity of relying chiefly upon such a support for sustaining ..the 
 British pretensions. Stated in brief, the argument is this: The American 
 title is not good against Gretit Britain, because inconsistent with that of 
 Spain ; and the Spanish title is not good against Great Britain, because in¬ 
 consistent with that of the United State.s. The undersigned had expected 
 something far different from such an argument in a circle. He had antici¬ 
 pated that the British plenipotentiary would have attempted to prove that 
 Spain had no right to the northwestern coast of America; that it was 
 
77 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 vacant and unappropriated; and hence, under the law of nations, was open 
 to discovery, exploration, and settlement by all nations. But no such thing. 
 On this vital point of his case, he rests his argiiraeMt solely on the declara¬ 
 tion made by the undersigned, that the title of the United States to the 
 valley of the Columbia was perfect and complete before the treaties of joint 
 occupation, of October, 1818, and August, 1827, and before the date of the 
 Florida treaty, in 1819. But the British plenipotentiary ought to recollect 
 that this title was asserted to be complete, not against Spain, but against 
 Great Britain ; that the argument was conducted, not against a Spanish, but 
 a British plenipotentiary; and that the United Stales, and not Great Britain, 
 represent the Spanish title. And further, that the statement from which 
 he extracts these declarations was almost exclusively devoted to prove, in 
 the language quoted by the British plenipotentiary himself, that “ Spain 
 had a good title, as against Great Britain, to the whole of the Oregon terri¬ 
 tory.” ' The undersigned has never, as he before observed, instituted any 
 comparison between the American and the Spanish title. Holding both— 
 having a perfect right to rely upon both, whether jointly or separately—he 
 has strongly asserted each of them in their turn, fully persuaded that either 
 the one or the other is good against Great Britain; and that no human 
 itigemiity can make the Spanish title, now vested in the United States, 
 worse than it would have been had it remained in the hands of Spain. 
 
 Briefly to illustrate and enforce this title, shall be the remaining task ®f 
 the undersigned. 
 
 Ajld, in the first place, he cannot but commend the frankness and candor 
 of tiie British plenipotentiary, in departing from the course of his predeces¬ 
 sors, and rejecting all discoveries previous to those of Captain Cook, in the 
 year 1778, as foundations of British title. Commencing with discovery at 
 a period so late, the Spanish title, on the score of antiquity, presents a 
 strong contrast to that of Great Britain. The undersigned had stated as a 
 historical and “striking fact, which must have an important bearing against 
 the claim of Great Britain, that this convention, (the Nootka,) which was 
 dictated by her to Spain, contains no provision impairing the ultimate sov¬ 
 ereignty which that power had asserted, for nearly three centuries,over the 
 whole western side of North America ns far north ns the Cist degree of lat¬ 
 itude, and which had never been seriously questioned by any "European 
 nation. This had been maintained by Spain with the most vigilant jeal¬ 
 ousy ever since the discovery of the American continent, and had been ac¬ 
 quiesced in by all European governments. It had been admitted even be¬ 
 yond the latitude of 54° 40' north, by Russia, then the only power having 
 claims which could come in collision with Spain; and that, too, under a 
 sovereign peculiarly tenacious of the territorial rights of her empire.” 
 These historical facts had not been, as they could not be, controverted by 
 the British plenipotentiary, although they were brought under his particu- 
 liar observation, and were even quoted by him, with approbation, for the 
 purpose of showing the inconsistency of the several titles hold by the Uni¬ 
 ted States. In the language of Count de Fenian Nunez, the Spanish am¬ 
 bassador at Paris, to M. de Montmorin, the secretary of the foreign depart¬ 
 ment of France, under date of June 16th, 1790,—“By the treaties, demarka- 
 lions, takings of possession, and the most decided acts of sovereignty n.xer- 
 cised by the Spaniards in those stations, from the reign of Charles 11, and 
 iiuthorized by that monarch in 1692, the original vouchers for which sliall 
 be brought forward in the course of the negotiation, all the coast to the 
 north of the western America, on the side of the South sea, ns far as he- 
 
78 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 yond what is called Prince William’s Sound, which is in the 61st degree, is 
 acknowledged to belong exclusively to Spain.” 
 
 Compared with this ancient claim of Spam, acquiesced in by all Euro¬ 
 pean nations for centuries, the claim of Great Britain, founded on discove¬ 
 ries commenced at so late a period as the year 1778, must make an unfa¬ 
 vorable first impression. 
 
 Spain considered the northwesterti coast of America ns exclusively her 
 own. She did not send out expediiiotis to explore that const for the pur¬ 
 pose of rendering her title more valid. When it suited her own conve¬ 
 nience, or promoted her own interest, she fitted out such expeditions of dis¬ 
 covery to ascertain the character and extent of her own territory. And 
 yet her di.scoveries along that coast are far earlier than those of the British. 
 
 That Joan de Puca, a Greek in the service of Spain, in 1692, dtscov- 
 ered and sailed through the strait now bearing his name, from its sotithera 
 to its northern extremity, and thence returned through the same passage, no- 
 lotiger admits of reasonable doubt. An account of this voyage was pub¬ 
 lished in London in 1625, in a work called the Pilgrims, by Satnuei Pnrchas. 
 This account was received from the lips of FncahimseH, at Venice, in- 
 April, 1696, by Michael Lock, a highly respectable Etiglish merchant. 
 
 Duritig a long period this voyage was deemed fabtilous, becattse snbse- 
 quent navigators had in vain attempted to find these straits. Finally, after 
 they had been found, it was discovered that the descripiions of de Fnca 
 corresponded so accurately v/ilh their geography, and tiie facts presented 
 by nature upon the ground, that it was no longer possible to consider his"' 
 narrative as fiibiilons. It is true that the opening of the straits from the 
 south lies between the 48lh and 49ih parallels of latitude, and not between 
 the 47th and the 48th parallels, as he had supposed ; but this mistake may 
 be easily explained by the inaccuracy so common ttironghoiit the sixteentb 
 century in ascertaining the latitude of places in newly discovered coniitries. 
 
 It is also true thatde Fuca, after passing through these straits, supposed 
 he had reached the Atlantic, and had discovered the passage go long and so 
 anxiously sought after between tlie two oceans ; but from the total ignortince 
 and misapprehension, which prevailed at that early d;iy, of the geography 
 of this portion of North America, it was natural for him to believe that he 
 had made this important discovery. 
 
 Justice has at length been done to hi.s memory, and these straits which 
 he discovered will in all future time bear his name. Thus the merit of 
 the discovery of the straits of Fuca belongs to Spain, and this nearly two 
 centuries before they had been entered by Captain Berkeley, under the 
 Austrian flag. 
 
 It is unnecessary to detail the discoveries of the Spaniards, as they reg¬ 
 ularly advanced to the north from their settlements on the western coasts of 
 North America, until wo reach the voyage of Captain Juan Perez in 1774. 
 That navigator was commissioned by the Viceroy of .Mexico to proceed in 
 the corvette Santiago to the 6()th degree of north latitude, and from that 
 point to examine the coast down to Mexico. He sailed from San Bias on the- 
 25th January, 1774. In the performance of this commission tic landed 
 first on the northwest coast of Queen Charlotte’s island, near the odth de¬ 
 gree of north latitude, and thence proceeded south along the shore of that 
 island, and of the great island of Quadra and Vancouver, and then along 
 the coast of the coiuinent, until he reached ftlonterey. He went on shore 
 and held intercourse with the natives at .several places, and especially at the 
 entrance of a bay in latitude 49i degrees, which he called Port San Lorenzo, 
 
79 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 (he same now known by the name of Nootka Sound. In addition to the 
 joiiriuils ot' this voyaoro, wliicli render the fact incontestable, we have the 
 liigli aiitboriiy of Baron Humboldt in its favor. That distinguished travel- 
 lei-, who had access to the manuscript documents in the city of Me,xico, 
 states that “Perezand his pilot, Estevan Martinez, left the port of San Bias 
 on the 24ih January, 1774. On the 9ih August they anchored, the 
 first of all European navigators, in Nootka Road, which they called tho 
 port of San Lorenzo, and which the illustrious Cook,/our years afterwards, 
 called King George’s Sound.” 
 
 In the next year, 1775, the Viceroy of Mexico again Cited out the San¬ 
 tiago, under the conmiaiid o( Bruno Heceta, with Perez, her former com- 
 iiiandcr, as ensign ; and also a schooner called the Sonora, commanded by 
 Juan b’raticisco de la Bodega y ftundra. These vessels were coumiission- 
 ed to examine the northwestern coast of America as far as the Goth degree 
 of latitude, and sailed in company from San Bias on the loth March, 1775. 
 
 Itis nntiecessary to enumerate the difterent places on the coast examined by 
 these navigators, either ill company or separately. Suffice it to .say, that they 
 landed at many places on the coast from the List to the 57th degree of lati¬ 
 tude, on ail of which occasions they took possession of the country in the 
 name of their sovereign, according to a prescribed regulation; celebrating 
 mass, reading dechirailotis asserting the right of Spam to the territory, and 
 erecting cro.sses with inscriptions to commemorate the event. Some of 
 these crosses were afterwards found standing by British navigators. In. 
 yelalion to these voyages, Baron Hnnibnldt says: “In the following year, 
 (1775, after that of Perez.) a second e.xpedition set out from San Bias tin¬ 
 der the command of Heceta, Ayala, and Quadra. Heceta discovered the 
 mouth of the Rio Columbia, called it the entrada de Heceta, the Pic of Satt 
 Jacinto (.Mount Edgecombe.) near Norlblk bay, and the fine port of Bucareli. 
 1 possess two very curious small maps, engraved in 1788, in the city of 
 Mexico, which give the bearings of the coast from the 27th to tho 58th 
 degree of latitude, ns they were discovered in the expedition of Quadra.” 
 
 In the face ol these incontestable facts, the British plenipotentiary says, 
 that “ Captain Cook must also be considered the discoverer of Nootlca Sound, 
 in consequence of the want of authenticity in the alleged previous discov¬ 
 ery of that port by Perez.”^ And yet Cook did not even sail from England 
 until the 12th July, 1776, nearly two years after Perez had made this dis¬ 
 covery. The chief object of Cook’s voyage was the discovery of a north¬ 
 west passage; and he never landed at any point of the continent south of 
 Nootka Sound. It is true, that in coasting along the continent, before he 
 reached this place, he had observed Ctipe Flattery; but he was entirely ig¬ 
 norant that this was the southern entrance of the straits of Fnca. In his 
 journal he admits that he had heard some account of the Spanish voyages 
 of 1774and 1775, before he left England; and it is beyond question that, 
 before his departure, accounts of the voyage of Quadra had been published 
 both in Madrid and London. From Nootka Sound, Cook did not again see 
 land until he reached the 57th degree of north latitude. 
 
 In 1787, it is alleged by the British plenipotentiary tliat Captain Berke¬ 
 ley, a British subject, discovered the straits of Fuca; but these straits had 
 bMii discovered by Juan de Fuca nearly two centuries before. Besides, if 
 there had been any merit in this discovery of Captain Berkeloy, it would 
 h.ave belonged to Austria, in whose service he was, and under whose col¬ 
 ors he sailed, and cannot be appropriated by Great Britain. 
 
 .And here it is worthy of remark, that these discoveris.s of Cool; and 
 
[ 1 ] 80 
 
 Berkeley, in ITTS and 1787, are all those on which the British plenipoten¬ 
 tiary relies, previous to (he date of the Nootka Sound convention, in Octo¬ 
 ber, 1791), to defeat the ancient Spanish title to the northwest coast of Amer- 
 
 The undersigned will how take a position which cannot, in his opinion, 
 be successfully assailed ; and this is, that no discovery, exploration, or set¬ 
 tlement made by Great Britain on the northwest coast of America, after the 
 dale of the Nootka Sound convention, and before it was terminated by the 
 war of 1790, can be invoked by that power in favor of her own title, or 
 against the title of Spain. Even according to the British construction of 
 that convention, the sovereignty over the territory was to remain in abey¬ 
 ance during its continuance'^ as well in regard to Great Britain as to Spain. 
 It would, therefore, have been an open violation of faith on the part of Great 
 Britain, after having secured the privileges conferred upon her by the con¬ 
 vention, to turn round against her partner and perform any acts calculated 
 to dive.st Spain of her ultimate sovereignty over any portion of the coun¬ 
 try. The palpable meaning of the convention was, that during its contin¬ 
 uance the rights of the respective parlies, whatever they may have been, 
 should remain just as they had existed at its coramencoment. 
 
 The government of Great Britain is not justly chargeable with any such 
 breach of faith. Captain Yanconver acted without instructions in attempt¬ 
 ing to lake possession of the whole northwestern coast of America in the 
 name of his sovereign. '^I’his officer, sent out from England to execute the 
 convention, did not carry with him any authority to violate it in this out¬ 
 rageous manner. 
 
 Without this treaty, he would have been a mere intruder; under it, 
 Great Britain had a right to make discoveries and surveys; not thereby to 
 acquire title, but merely to enable her subjects to select spots the most ad¬ 
 vantageous, to use the language of the convention, “ for the purpose of car¬ 
 rying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or of making set¬ 
 tlements there.” 
 
 If this construction of the Nootka Sound convention be correct—and the 
 undersigned does not perceive how it can be questioned—then Vancouver’s 
 passage through the straits of Fuca, in 179ti, and Ale.xunder Mackenzie’s 
 journey across the continent, in 1793, can never be transformed into ele¬ 
 ments of title in favor of Great Britain. 
 
 But even if the undersigned could he mistaken in these positions, it would 
 be easy to prove that Capmin .Tohn Kendrick, in the American sloop Wash¬ 
 ington, passed through the straits of Fuca, in 1789, three years before Gap- 
 lam Vancouver performed the same voyage. The very instructions to the 
 latter, before he left England, in .lanuiiry, 1791, refer to this fact, which 
 had been communicated to the British government by Lieutenant Meares, 
 who has rendered his name so notorious by us connexion with the trans¬ 
 actions preceding the Nootka Sound convention. It is, moreover, well 
 known that the whole southern division of the straits hud been explored by 
 the Spanish navigators, Elisa and duimpa—the first in 1790, and the lat¬ 
 ter in 1791. 
 
 After what has been s.rid, it will be perceived how little reason the British 
 plenipotentiary has for stating that his government has, “as far as relates to 
 Vancoiivei’s island, ns complete a case ol' di.'-'covery, exploration, and set¬ 
 tlement, as can well be presented, giving to Groat Britain, in any arrange¬ 
 ment that, may be made with regard to the territory in (iispute, the strong¬ 
 est possible'claim to the e.xciusivo possession of ti., ■ d.” 
 
The discovery thus relied upon is that of Noolka Sound, hy Cook, in 
 1778; when it has been demonstrated that this port was first discovered by 
 Perez, in 177d. The exploration is that by Vancouver, in passing through 
 the straits ot Fuca, in 1792, and examining the coasts of the tenilory in 
 dispute; when de Plica himself liad passed through these straits in 1592, 
 and ICendrick again in 1789, and a complete examination of the western 
 coast had been made in 1774 and 1775, both by Perez and Quadra. As to 
 possession, if Meares was ever actually restored to his possessions at Noot- 
 ka Sound, whatever these may have been, the undersigned has never seen 
 any evidence of the. fact. It is not to be found in the journal of Vancouver, 
 although this officer was sent from England for the avowed purpose of 
 witnessing such a restoration. The undersigned knows not whether any 
 new understanding took place between the British and Spanish govern¬ 
 ments on this subject; but one fact is placed beyond all doubt—that the 
 Spaniards continued in the undisturbed possession of Nootka Sound until 
 the year 1795, when they voluntarily abandoned the place. Great Britain 
 has never, at any time since, occupied this or any other position on Van¬ 
 couver’s island. Thus, on the score of either discovery, exploration, or 
 possession, this island seems to be the very last portion of the territory in 
 dispute to which she can assert a just claim. 
 
 In the mean time, the United States were proceeding with the discoveries 
 which served to complete and confirm the, Spanish-Araerican title to the 
 whole of the disputed territory. 
 
 Captain Robert Gray, in June, 1789, in the sloop Washington, first c.x- 
 plored the whole eastern coast of Queen Charlotte’s island. 
 
 In the autumn of the same year. Captain John Kendrick, having in the 
 mean time surrendered the command of the Columbia to Captain Gray, 
 sailed, as has been already stated, in the sloop Washington, entirely through 
 the straits of Fuca. 
 
 In 1791 Captain Gray returned to the north Pacific in the Columbia, and 
 in the summer of that year examined many of the inlets and passages be¬ 
 tween the 51th and 56th degrees of latitude, which the undersigned con¬ 
 siders it unnecessary to specify. 
 
 On the 7th of May, 1792, he discovered and entered Bulfinch’s harbor, 
 where he remained at anchor three days, trading with the Indians. 
 
 On the 11th May, 1792, Captain Gray entered the mouth of the Colum¬ 
 bia, and completed the discovery of that great river. This river had been 
 long sought in vain by former navigators. Both Meares and Vancouver, 
 after examination, had denied its existence. Thus is the world indebted to 
 the enterprise, perseverance, and intelligence of an American captain of a 
 trading vessel, for their first knowledge of this, the greatest river on the 
 western coast of America—a river whose head springs flow from the gorges 
 of-the Rocky mountains, and whose branches extend from the 42d to the 
 53d parallel of latitude. This was the last and most important discovery 
 on the coast, and has pepetuated the tiame of Robert Gray. In all future 
 time this great river will bear the name of his vessel. 
 
 It is true that Bruno Heceta, in the year 1775, had been opposite the bay 
 of the Columbia, and the currents and eddies of the water caused him, as 
 he remarks, to believe that this was “ the mouth of some great river, or of 
 some passage to another seaand his opinion seems decidedly to have been 
 that this was the opening of the strait discovered by Juan de Fuca, in 1592. 
 To use his own language: “ Notwithstanding the great difference between 
 the position of this bay and the passage mentioned by de Fuca, I have lit- 
 
82 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 lie dilRciilty in conceiving that they may be the same, having observed 
 equal or i:renter didereiices in the latitudes of other capes and ports on this 
 coast, as 1 shall show at its proper lime; and in all cases the latitudes thus 
 assigned are higher than the real ones.” 
 
 Ileceta, from his own declaration, had never entered the Columbia, and 
 he was in doubt whether the opening was the mouth of a river or an arm 
 of the sea; and siihscqiient examinations of the coast by other navigators 
 had rendered the opinion universal, that no such river existed when Gray 
 first bore the American flag across its bar, sailed up its channel for twenty- 
 five miles, and remained in the river nine days, trading with the Indians. 
 
 The British jdenipnteuliary attempts to depreciate the value to the 
 United Slates o( Gray’s discovery, hecaitse his ship, the Columbia, was 
 a trading and not a national vessel. As he furnishes no reason for 
 this distinction, the undersigned will confine himself to the remark, that a 
 nierciiant vessel bears the flag of her country'at her mast-head, and con¬ 
 tinues under its jurisdiction and protection in the same manner as though 
 she had been commissioned for the express purpose of making discov¬ 
 eries. Besides, beyond all doubt, this discovery was made by Gray ; and 
 to what nation could the benefit of it belong, unless it be to the United 
 Stales] Ceitainly not to Great Britain ; and if to Spain, the United States 
 are now her representative. 
 
 Nor does the nndersigiied perceive in what manner the value of this 
 great discovery can be lessened by the fact that it was first published to 
 the world throiigh the journal ol Captain Vancouver, a British authority. 
 On the contrary, its aiUheniicily, being thus acknowledged by the parly 
 having an adverse intercs'., is more firmly established than if it had been 
 first published in the United States. 
 
 Prom a careful examination and review of the subject, the undersigned 
 veninres the assertion that to Spain and the United States belongs all the 
 merit of the discovery of the northwest coast of America south of the Russian 
 line, not a spot on which, unless it may have been the shores of some of the in¬ 
 terior bays and inlets after the entrance to them had been known, was ever 
 beheld hy British subjects until after it had been seen or touched by a 
 Spaniard or an American. Spain proceeded in this work of discovery, 
 not as a means of acquiring title, bin for the purpo.se of examining and 
 surveying territory to which she believed she had an incontestible right. 
 Her title had been sanctioned for centuries by the acknowledgment or 
 acqtiiescence of all the European powers. The United Slates alone could 
 have disputed this title, and that only to the extent of the region watered by 
 the Oolnmbia. The Spanish and American titles, now united by the Florida 
 treaty, cannot he justly resisted by Great Britain. Considered together, they 
 constituted a perfect title to the whole territory in dispute ever since the llth 
 of May, 1792, when Captain Gray passed the bar at the mouth of the Colum¬ 
 bia, which he had observed in August, 1788. 
 
 The nndeisigned will now proceed to show that this title of the United 
 Slates, at least to the possession of the territory at the mouth of the Colum¬ 
 bia, has been acknowledged by the most solemn and unequivocal acts of 
 the Btitish government. 
 
 After the purchase of Louisiana from France, the government of the 
 United States fitted out an expedition under Messrs. Lewis and Clarke, who, 
 in 180.5, first explored the Columbia from its sources to its mouth, prepara¬ 
 tory to the occupation of the territory by the United States. 
 
 In 1811, the settlement at Astoria was made by the Americans near the 
 
83 [ 1 ] 
 
 moutli of the river, aiiJ several olher posts were cslablislied in the interior 
 along its bank's. The war of 1S12 helween Great Britain and the United 
 Stales thus found the latter in peaceable possession of that reoion. Asto¬ 
 ria was captured hy Great Britain during this war. The treaty of peace 
 conclndetl at Ghent, in December, 1814, provided that “ all territory, places, 
 and piis.si-ssioiis, whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during 
 the war,” &c. &c. “ shall be restored without delay.” In obedience to the 
 provisions of this treaty. Great. Britain restored Astoiia to the United 
 States, and thus admitted in the most solemn miinner, not only that it had 
 been an American territory, or possession, at the commencement of the 
 war, but that it had been captured by British arms during its continnatice. 
 It isniow too late to gainsay or expiain away these facts. Both the treaty 
 of Ghent, and the acts of the British government under it, disprove the af- 
 iegations of the British plenipotentiary, that Astoria passed “into British 
 hands by the voluntary act of the persons in charge of it,” and “that it 
 was restored to the United States in 1818, with certain well authenticated 
 reservations.” 
 
 In reply to the first of these allegations, it is true that the agents of the 
 (American) Pacific Fur Company, before the capture of Astoria on the lUih 
 of October, 1813, had transferred all that they could transfer, the private 
 property of the company, to the (British) Northwest Company ; but it will 
 scarcely be contended that such an arrangement could impair the sovereign 
 rights of the United States to the territory. Accordingly, the American flag 
 was still kept flying over the fort nnlil the 1st December, 1813, when it 
 was captured by his majesty’s sloop-of-war Rackoon, and the British flag 
 was then subsituted. 
 
 That it was not restored to the United Slates “ with certain well anlhcn- 
 ticaled reserv.-itions,” fully appears from the act of restoration itself, bear¬ 
 ing date (5ih October, 1818. This i.s as absolute and unconditional as the 
 English language can make it. That this was according to the iutenlioii 
 of Lord Cas'tlereagh, clearly appears from his previous admission to Mr. 
 Rush, of the right of the Americans to be reinstated, and to be the parly in 
 possession while treating on the title. If British ministers afterwards, in 
 despatches to theii own agents, the contents of which were not communi¬ 
 cated to the government of the Uirited Stales, thought proper to protest 
 against our ihle, these were in dftet but mere menttil reservations, which 
 could not affect the validity of their own solemn and unconditional act of 
 restoration. 
 
 Bill the British plenipotentiary, notwithstanding the Atnerican discovery 
 of the Coinmbia by Oaplain Gray, and the exploration by Lewis and Clarke 
 of several of its branches, from their sources in the Rocky mountains, as 
 well.as its main channel, to the ocean, contends that hocanso 'riiompsoipa 
 BritLsh subject in the employment of the Northwest Comp.niy, was the first 
 who navigated the northern branch of that river, the British government 
 thereby acrpiired certain rights against the United States, tlie extent of 
 which he does not undertake to specify. In other words, that after one na. 
 tioii had discovered and explored a great river and several of its Iribnte.rins, 
 and made settlements on its banks, another nation, if it could find a single 
 branch on its head waters which had not been acln.illy explored, might ap¬ 
 propriate to itself this branch, together with the adjacent territory. If this 
 could have been done, it would have produced perpetu.il sirife and collisiou 
 among the nations after the discovery of America. It would have vmlatsd 
 the wise principle, consecrated by the practice of nations, which gives tha 
 
84 
 
 [ 1 ] 
 
 valley drained by a river and its branches to the nation which had first dis¬ 
 covered and appropriated its mouth. 
 
 Blit, for another reason, this alleged discovery of Thompson has no 
 merits whatever. His journey was undertaken on behalf of the Northwest 
 Company for the mere purpose of anticipating the United States in the oc¬ 
 cupation of the month of the Columbia—a territory to which no nation, 
 unless it may have been Spain, could, with any show of justice, dispute 
 their right. They had acquired it by discovery and by exploration, and 
 were now in the act of taking possession. It was in an enterprise under¬ 
 taken for such a purpose that Thompson, in hastening from Canada to the 
 mouth of the Columbia, descended the north, arbitrarily assumed by Great 
 Britain to be the main, branch of this river. The period was far too late to 
 impair the title of either Spain or the United States by any such proceeding. 
 
 Mr. Thompson, on his return, was accompanied by a party from Astoria, 
 nndttr Mr. David Stuart, who established a post at the confluence of the 
 Okinagan with the north branch of the Columbia, about six hundred miles 
 above the mouth of the latter. 
 
 In the next year, 1812, a second trading post was established by a party 
 from Astoria, on tbeSpokan, about six hundred and fifty miles from the ocean. 
 
 It thus appears that previous to the capture of Astoria by the British, the 
 Americans had extended their possessions up the Columbia six hundred 
 turd fifty miles. The mere intrusion of the Northwest Company into this 
 territory, and the establishment of two or three trading posts, in 1811 and 
 1812, on the head waters of the river, can surely not interfere with or im¬ 
 pair the Spanish American title. What this company may have done in 
 the intermediate period until the 20th October, 1818, the date of the first 
 treaty of joint occupation, is unknown to the undersigned, from the impen¬ 
 etrable mystery in which they have veiled their proceedings. After the 
 date of this treaty, neither Great Britain nor the United States could have 
 performed any act affiicting their claims to the disputed territory. 
 
 To sum up the whole, then. Great Britain cannot rest her claims to the 
 northwest coast of America upon discovery. As little will her single claim 
 by settlement at Nootka Sound avail her. Even Belsham, her own histo¬ 
 rian, forty )'cars ago, declared it to be certain, from the most authentic in¬ 
 formation, “ that the Spanish flag flying at Nootka was never struck, and 
 that the territory has heen virlitally relinquished by Great Britain.” 
 
 The agents of ibc Noriljwest Company, penetrating the coniincnt from 
 Canada in 18116, established llieir first trading post west of llie Rocky 
 niomilaiiis, at Frazer’s lake, in the Sltlt degree of laliiiide; and this, with 
 the trading posts cstablislied by Tiiompson, to which the undersigned lias 
 just adverted, and possibly some others afterwards, previous to October, 
 ISIS, constitutes the claim of Great Britain by actual settlement. 
 
 Upon the whole: From the most careful and ample examinaiioii which 
 the undevsigned lias been able to bestow upon the subject, be is sali.-fied 
 that the Spanish American title now held by the United States, embracing 
 the wliole territory between the parallels of ■12'' and 54° 46', is the best 
 title in existence to this entire resjion ; and that tile claim of Great Britain 
 to any portion of it has no sufticieiit foundation. Even Brinsb geogra¬ 
 phers have not doubled onr title to the. territory in dispute, 'riiere is a 
 large and splendid globe now in the Depariraent of State, recently received 
 from London, and publisbed by Malby and Company, “ manitfacture.rs and 
 puhlisliers to the Society for the Diffusion of Uselul Knowledge,” wliieli as¬ 
 signs this territory to the United States. 
 
85 [ 1 ] 
 
 Nolwiiiislaiiding sncli was and siill is the opinion of the President, yet, 
 in tile spirit of compromise and concession, aiid in deference to the action 
 of liis predecessors, the undersigned, in obedience to his instructions, pro¬ 
 posed to the British plenipotentiary to settle the controversy by dividing the 
 territory in disimte by the forty-ninth parallel of latitude, offering at the 
 same time to make free to Great Brilaitt atiy port or ports on Vancouver’s 
 island, south of this latitude, which the British governmeitt might desire. 
 The British plenipotentiary has correctly suggested that the free navigation 
 of the Columbia river was not embraced in this proposal to Great Britain ; 
 but, on the other hand, the nse of free ports on the southern extremity of 
 this island had not been included in former offers. 
 
 Such a proposition ns that which has been made never would have been 
 authorized by the President, had this been a new question. 
 
 Upon liis accession to office, he found the present negotiation pending. 
 It iiad been instituted in the spirit and npon the principle of compromise. 
 Its object, as avowed by the negotiators, was not to demand the whole ter¬ 
 ritory in dispute for either country; but, in the language of the first proto¬ 
 col, "to treat of the respective claims of the two cbnntrios to the Oregon 
 territory, with the view to establish a permanent hnnndary between them 
 westward of the Rocky mountains to the Pacific ocean.” 
 
 Placed in tins posiiion, and considering that Piesidents Monroe and 
 Adams laid, on former occasions, offered to divide the territory in dispute 
 by the forty ninth parallel of latiinde, he felt it to be his duty not abruptly 
 to arrest the negotiation, but so far to yield his own opinion as once more 
 to make a similar offer. 
 
 Not only rc.specl for tlie conduct of his predecessors, but a sincere and 
 anxious desire to promote peace and harmony holween the two countries, 
 influenced liim to ))nisiio this cour.se. The Oregon question presents the 
 only intervening cloud wliicli iniereepls the prospect of a long career of 
 mutual friendship and beneficial commerce between the two nations; and 
 tlii.s cloud lie desired to remove. 
 
 'I'hc.so arc ilie rea.sons wliicli actuated the President to offer a proposition 
 so liberal to Great Britain. 
 
 And liow lias Ibis proposition lieen received by the British plenipoten¬ 
 tiary? It has been rejected without even a reference to his own govern¬ 
 ment. N’ay, more; tlio Britisli plenipotentiary, to use his own language, 
 “tiuststiiat the American plenipotentiary will be prepared to offer some 
 fnrtiior proposal for tlie settlement oftlie Oregon question, more consistent 
 wilhfuirness and cquiti/, and with the reasonable expectations of the Brit- 
 
 Under such circtinistances, the undersigned i.s instructed by the Presi¬ 
 dent to say iliat .he owes it to liis own country, and a just appreciation of 
 lier title to ihe Oregon territory, to withdraw the proposition to the Britisli 
 goveniineiit wliich liad been made under his direction ; and it is hereby 
 acce.rdingly withdrawn. 
 
 in taking llii.s necessary step, tlie President siill clierislies the hope that 
 this long |)ending conlrover.sy may yet be finally adjusted in such a man¬ 
 ner as not to disturb tile peace or inierrnpt the iiarmony now so liappily 
 subsisting between tlie two nations. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself, &,c. 
 
 JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 
 Riglit lion. Ilicii.vRD PAKEXiiaj.i, ^‘c.,