b. Multnomah Circulating library.
c. Lyceum for debates.
d. Bounty for destruction of dangerous animals.
e. Proposal to secure protection for families.
f. Committee to frame temporary government.
g. Plan adopted by meeting in Champoeg field.
h. Legislative committee appointed.
i. Executive committee of three instead of governor.
5. Reorganization.
a. Influence of immigration of 1843.
b. Primitive State House.
c. Earliest laws enacted.
d. Legislative committee becomes a legislature.
e. Executive committee changed to governorship.
f. George Abernethy chosen governor, 1845.
g. Oath of office reveals "joint occupancy."
6. Results.
a. Laws of Iowa Territory adopted.
b. Prohibition.
c. Failure of postoffice.
d. Dwelling.
e. Currency, "Beaver Money" in gold.
f. Dominion up to 54-40 north latitude.
g. Federal organization of Oregon Territory, 1848-1849.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The above outline covers one of the most interesting
portions of Northwestern history. It reveals the natural aptitude of
Americans for self-government and shows a natural evolution of a state
from settlements of pioneers in a wilderness. The literature on the
subject is growing rapidly. The items following are among those most
readily accessible to those wishing to pursue the study:
BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE. Works of. Vol. XXIX, chapters XII, XIV, XVI,
XVIII, XIX, XXII, XXVI. Here is found the story of the provisional
government told at considerable length.
CLARK, ROBERT CARLTON. How British and American Subjects Unite in a
Common Government for Oregon Territory in 1844. In the Quarterly of the
Oregon Historical Society, Vol. XIII, Number 2.
GROVER, LAFAYETTE. The Oregon Archives. This is a rare book, published
in 1853. It contains the early laws of the provisional government and
other source materials of prime importance.
HOLMAN, FREDERICK V. Dr. John McLoughlin, the Father of Oregon. While
this is intended as a biography of the grand old Doctor, it is a book
of much helpfulness to students of this period. At the end of the
volume there are nineteen documents illustrative of the text.
JOHNSON, SIDONA V. A Short History of Oregon, Chapters XVIII to XXIII.
The title of the book is well chosen, but many may find there the facts
needed.
MEANY, EDMOND S. History of the State of Washington. Chapter XVI deals
in part with the provisional government while Washington was yet a part
of Oregon.
SCHAFER, JOSEPH. History of the Pacific Northwest. In this interesting
and useful book, Chapter XIII is entitled "The First American
Government on the Pacific."
WOODWARD, WALTER C. Political Parties in Oregon, 1843-1868. This
book was published by the J. K. Gill Company of Portland. Oregon, in
1913. It is the newest, as well as the most extensive, work in this
particular field. Those who are collecting books on the Northwest
should not overlook this one. Anyone studying in the field of the above
syllabus will find the book helpful.
REPRINT DEPARTMENT
George Wilkes: History of Oregon, Geographical, Geological and
Political. (New York, Colyer, 1845.)
* * * * *
[The reprint of this rare work was begun in the first number of the
Washington Historical Quarterly and has been continued in portions of
varying lengths. The installment in this issue concludes the reprinted
book.--_Editor._]
* * * * *
But can such charters be considered an acknowledged part of the law
of nations? Were they any thing more, in fact, than a cession to the
grantee or grantees of whatever rights the grantor might suppose
himself to possess, to the exclusion of other subjects of the same
sovereign?--charters binding and restraining those only who were within
the jurisdiction of the grantor, and of no force or validity against
the subjects of other states, until recognized by treaty, and thereby
becoming a part of international law.
Had the United States, thought proper to issue, in 1790, by virtue of
their national authority, a charter granting to Mr. Gray the whole
extent of the country watered, directly or indirectly, by the River
Columbia,[84] such a charter, would, no doubt, have been valid in Mr.
Gray's favor, as against all other citizens of the United States. But
can it be supposed that it would have been acquiesced in by either of
the powers, Great Britain and Spain, which, in that same year, were
preparing to contest by arms the possession of the very country which
would have been the subject of such a grant?
If the right of sovereignty over the territory in question accrues to
the United States by Mr. Gray's discovery, how happens it that they
never protested against the violence done to that right by the two
powers, who, by the convention of 1790, regulated their respective
rights in and over a district so belonging, as it is now asserted, to
the United States?
This claim of the United States to the territory drained by the
Columbia and its tributary streams, on the ground of one of their
citizens having been the first to discover the entrance of that river,
has been here so far entered into, not because it is considered to be
necessarily entitled to notice, since the whole country watered by the
Columbia falls within the provisions of the convention of 1790, but
because the doctrine above alluded to has been put forward so broadly,
and with such confidence, by the United States, that Great Britain
considered it equally due to herself and to other powers to enter her
protest against it.
The United States further pretend that their claim to the country in
question is strengthened and confirmed by the discovery of the sources
of the Columbia, and by the exploration of its course to the sea by
Lewis and Clark, in 1805-6.
In reply to this allegation, Great Britain affirms, and can distinctly
prove, that, if not before, at least in the same and subsequent years,
her North-Western Trading Company had, by means of their agent, Mr.
Thomson, already established their posts among the Flathead and
Kootanie tribes, on the headwaters of the northern or main branch of
the Columbia, and were gradually extending them down the principal
stream of that river; thus giving to Great Britain, in this particular,
again, as in the discovery of the mouth of the river, a _title to
parity_ at least, if not priority, of discovery, as opposed to the
United States. It was from those posts, that, having heard of the
American establishment forming in 1811, at the mouth of the river, Mr.
Thomson hastened thither, descending the river, to ascertain the nature
of that establishment.[85]
Some stress having been laid by the United States on the restitution
to them of Fort George by the British, after the termination of the
last war, which restitution they represent as conveying a virtual
acknowledgment by Great Britain of the title of the United States to
the country in which that post was situated--it is desirable to state,
somewhat in detail, the circumstances attending that restitution.
In the year 1815, a demand for the restoration of Fort George was first
made to Great Britain, by the American government, on the plea that the
first article of the treaty of Ghent stipulated the restitution to the
United States of all posts and places whatsoever taken from them by the
British during the war, in which description, Fort George, (Astoria,)
was included.
For some time the British government demurred to comply with the demand
of the United States, because they entertained doubts how far it could
be sustained by the construction of the treaty.
In the first place, the trading post called Fort Astoria (or Fort
George,) was not a national possession; in the second place, it was not
a military post; and, thirdly, it was never captured from the Americans
by the British.
It was, in fact, conveyed in regular commercial transfer, and
accompanied by a bill of sale, for a sum of money, to the British
company, who purchased it, by the American company, who sold it of
_their own free will_.
It is true that a British sloop of war had, about that time, been sent
to take possession of that post, but she arrived subsequently to the
transaction above mentioned, between the two companies, and found the
British company _already in legal occupation of their self acquired
property_.
In consequence, however, of that ship having been sent out with hostile
views, although those views were not carried into effect,[86] and in
order that not even a shadow of a reflection might be cast upon the
good faith of the British government, the latter determined to give
the most liberal extension to the terms of the treaty of Ghent, and,
in 1818, the purchase which the British company had made in 1813 was
restored to the United States.
Particular care, however, was taken, on this occasion, to prevent
any misapprehension as to the extent of the concession made by Great
Britain.
Viscount Castlereagh, in directing the British minister at Washington
to intimate the intention of the British government to Mr. Adams, then
secretary of state, uses these expressions, in a despatch dated 4th
February, 1818:--
"You will observe, that, whilst this government is not disposed to
contest with the American government the point of possession as it
stood in the Columbia River at the moment of the rupture, _they are not
prepared to admit the validity of the title of the government of the
United States to this settlement_.
"In signifying, therefore, to Mr. Adams the full acquiescence of your
government in the reoccupation of _the limited position_ which the
United States held in that river at the breaking out of the war, _you
will at the same time assert, in suitable terms, the claim_ of Great
Britain to that territory, upon which the American settlement must be
considered as an encroachment."
This instruction was executed verbally by the person to whom it was
addressed.
The following is a transcript of the act by which the fort was
delivered up, by the British, into the hand of Mr. Prevost, the
American agent:--
"In obedience to the command of H. R. H. the prince regent, _signified
in a despatch from the right honorable the Earl Bathurst_, addressed
to the partners or agents of the North-West Company, bearing date
the 27th of January, 1818, and in obedience to a subsequent order,
dated the 26th July, from W. H. Sheriff, Esq., captain of H. M. ship
Andromache, We, the undersigned, do, in conformity to the first article
of the treaty of Ghent, restore to the government of the United States,
through its agent, J. P. Prevost, Esq., the settlement of Fort George,
on the Columbia river.
"Given under our hands, in triplicate, at Fort George, (Columbia
River,) this 6th day of October, 1818.
"F. HICKEY, _Captain H. M. ship Blossom_.
"J. KEITH, _of the N. W. Co_."
The following is the despatch from Earl Bathurst to the partners of the
North-West Company, referred to in the above act of cession:--
DOWNING-STREET, _27th January, 1818_.
"Intelligence having been received that the United States sloop of
war Ontario has been sent by the American government to establish a
settlement on the Columbia river, which was held by that state, on
the breaking out of the last war. I am to acquaint you, that it is
the prince regent's pleasure, (_without, however, admitting the right
of that government to the possession in question_) that, in pursuance
of the first article of the treaty of Ghent, due facility should be
given to the reoccupation of the said settlement by the officers of the
United States; and I am to desire that you would contribute as much as
lies in your power to the execution of his royal highness's command.
"I have, &c. &c.
BATHURST.
"_To the Partners or Agents of the North-West Company, residing on
the Columbia river._"
The above documents put the case of the restoration of Fort Astoria in
too clear a light to require further observation.
The case, then of Great Britain, in respect to the country west of the
Rocky Mountains, is shortly this:--
Admitting that the United States have acquired all the rights which
Spain possessed, up to the treaty of Florida, either in virtue of
discovery, or, as is pretended, in right Louisiana, Great Britain
maintains that the nature and extent of those rights, as well as of
the rights of Great Britain, are fixed and defined by the convention
of Nootka; that these rights are equal for both parties; and that, in
succeeding to the rights of Spain, under that convention, the United
States must also have succeeded to the obligations which it imposed.
Admitting, further, the discovery of Mr. Gray, to the extent already
stated, Great Britain, taking the whole line of the coast in question,
with its straits, harbors and bays, has stronger claims, on the ground
of prior discovery, attended with acts of occupancy and settlement,
than the United States.
Whether, therefore, the United States rest their claims upon the title
of Spain, or upon that of prior discovery, or upon both, Great Britain
is entitled to place her claims at least upon a parity with those of
the United States.
It is a fact, admitted by the United States, that, with the exception
of the Columbia river, there is no river which opens far into the
_interior_, on the whole western coast of the Pacific Ocean.
In the _interior_ of the territory in question, the subjects of Great
Britain have had, for many years, numerous settlements and trading
posts--several of these posts on the tributary streams of the Columbia,
several upon the Columbia itself, some to the northward, and others
to the southward, of that river; and they navigate the Columbia as
the sole channel for the conveyance of their produce to the British
stations nearest the sea, and for the shipment of it from thence to
Great Britain. It is also by the Columbia and its tributary streams
that these posts and settlements receive their annual supplies from
Great Britain.[87]
In the whole of the territory in question, the citizens of the United
States have not a single settlement or trading post. They do not use
that river, either for the purpose of transmitting or receiving any
produce of their own, to or from other parts of the world.
In this state of the relative rights of the two countries, and of
the relative exercise of those rights, the United States claim the
exclusive possession of both banks of the Columbia, and, consequently,
that of the river itself; offering, it is true, to concede to British
subjects a conditional participation in that navigation, but subject,
in any case, to the exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty of the
United States.
Great Britain, on her part, offers to make the river the boundary;
each country retaining the bank of the river contiguous to its own
territories, and the navigation of it remaining forever free, and upon
a footing of perfect equality to both nations.
To carry into effect this proposal, on our part, Great Britain would
have to give up posts and settlements south of the Columbia. On the
part of the United States, there could be no reciprocal withdrawing
from actual occupation, as there is not, and never has been, a single
American citizen settled north of the Columbia.
The United States decline to accede to this proposal, even when
Great Britain has added to it the further offer of a most excellent
harbor, and an extensive tract of country on the Straits of De Fuca--a
sacrifice tendered in the spirit of accommodation, and for the sake
of a final adjustment of all differences, but which, having been made
in this spirit, is not to be considered as in any degree recognizing
a claim on the part of the United States, or as at all impairing the
existing right of Great Britain over the post and territory in question.
Such being the result of the recent negotiation, it only remains for
Great Britain to maintain and uphold the qualified rights which she now
possesses over the whole of the territory in question. These rights
are recorded and defined in the convention of Nootka. They embrace the
right to navigate the waters of those countries, the right to settle
in and over any part of them, and the right freely to trade with the
inhabitants and occupiers of the same.
These rights have been peaceably exercised ever since the date of
that convention; that is, for a period of near forty years. Under
that convention, valuable British interests have grown up in those
countries. It is fully admitted that the United States possess the same
rights, although they have been exercised by them only in a single
instance, and have not, since the year 1813, been exercised at all. But
beyond these rights they possess none.
To the interests and establishments which British industry and
enterprise have created, Great Britain owes protection. That protection
will be given, both as regards settlement and freedom of trade and
navigation, with every attention not to infringe the coördinate rights
of the United States; it being the earnest desire of the British
government, so long as the joint occupancy continues, to regulate its
own obligations by the same rule which governs the obligations of any
other occupying party.
Fully sensible, at the same time, of the desirableness of a more
definite settlement, as between Great Britain and the United States,
the British government will be ready, at any time, to terminate the
present state of joint occupancy by an agreement of delimitation; but
such arrangement only can be admitted as shall not derogate from the
rights of Great Britain, as acknowledged by treaty, nor prejudice the
advantages which British subjects, under the same sanction, now enjoy
in that part of the world.
(No. 7.)
_Convention between the United States and Great Britain, signed at
London, October 20th, 1818._
ARTICLE 2.--It is agreed that a line drawn from the most northwestern
point of the Lake of the Woods, along the 49th parallel of north
latitude, or, if the said point shall not be in the 49th parallel of
north latitude, then that a line drawn from the said point due north or
south, as the case may be, until the said line shall intersect the said
parallel of north latitude, and from the point of such intersection
due west along and, with the said parallel, shall be the line of
demarkation between the territories of the United States and those of
his Britannic majesty; and that the said line shall form the northern
boundary of the said territories of the United States, and the southern
boundary of the territories of his Britannic Majesty, from the Lake of
the Woods to the Stony Mountains.
ART. 3.--It is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either
party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony
Mountains, shall, together with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and
the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open for
the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present
convention, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects, of the two powers;
it being well understood that this agreement is not to be construed to
the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high contracting
parties may have to any part of the said country, nor shall it be taken
to affect the claims of any other power or state to any part of the
said country; the only object of the high contracting parties, in that
respect, being to prevent disputes and differences among themselves.
(No. 8.)
_The Florida Treaty, signed at Washington, February 22nd, 1819_....
ARTICLE 3.--The boundary line between the two countries west of the
Mississippi shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the
River Sabine, in the sea, continuing north, along the western bank
of that river, to the 32d degree of latitude; thence, by a line due
north, to the degree of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of
Natchitoches, or Red River; then, following the course of the Rio Roxo
westward, to the degree of longitude 100 west from London and 23 from
Washington; then crossing the said Red River, and running thence, by a
line due north, to the River Arkansas; thence following the course of
the southern bank of the Arkansas, to its source in latitude 42 north;
and thence, by that parallel of latitude, to the South Sea; the whole
being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at
Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of January, 1818. But, if the source
of the Arkansas River shall be found to fall north or south of latitude
42, then the line shall run from the said source due south or north,
as the case may be, till it meets the said parallel of latitude 42,
and thence, along the said parallel, to the South Sea; all the islands
in the Sabine, and the said Red and Arkansas Rivers, throughout the
course thus described, to belong to the United States; but the use
of the waters and the navigation of the Sabine to the sea, and of
the said Rivers Roxo and Arkansas, throughout the extent of the said
boundary, on their respective banks, shall be common to the respective
inhabitants of both nations.
The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all
their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories described
by said line; that is to say, the United States hereby cede to his
Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims,
and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of the
above-described line; and, in like manner, his Catholic Majesty cedes
to the said United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions, to
any territories east and north of the said line; and for himself, his
heirs, and successors, renounces all claim to the said territories
forever.
(No. 9)
_Convention between the United States and Great Britain, signed at
London, August 6th, 1827._
ARTICLE 1. All the provisions of the third article of the convention
concluded between the United States of America and his majesty the
king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, on the 20th
of October, 1818, shall be, and they are hereby, further indefinitely
extended and continued in force, in the same manner as if all the
provisions of the said article were herein specifically recited.
ART. 2. It shall be competent, however, to either of the contracting
parties, in case either should think fit, at any time after the 20th
of October, 1828, on giving due notice of twelve months to the other
contracting party, to annul and abrogate this convention; and it shall,
in such case, be accordingly entirely annulled and abrogated, after the
expiration of the said term of notice.
ART. 3. Nothing contained in this convention, or in the third article
of the convention of the 20th October, 1818, hereby continued in force,
shall be constructed to impair, or in any manner affect, the claims
which either of the contracting parties may have to any part of the
country westward of the Stony or Rocky Mountains.
(No. 10.)
_The Instructions of the Merchant Proprietors, to John Meares_:
"* * * * Should you, in the course of your voyage, meet with any
Russian, _English_, or Spanish vessels, you will treat them with
civility and friendship, and allow them, if authorized, to examine
your papers, which will show the object of your voyage. But you must,
at the same time, guard against surprise. Should they attempt to
seize you, or even carry you out of your way, you will prevent it by
every means in your power, and repel force by force. You will on your
arrival in the first port, protest before a proper officer against
such illegal procedure; and ascertain as nearly as you can the value
of your vessel and cargo, sending such protest, with a full account of
the transaction, to us at China. Should you in such conflict have the
superiority, you will then take possession of the vessel that attacked
you, as also her cargo, and bring both, with the officers and crew
to China, that they may be condemned as legal prizes and their crews
punished as pirates. Wishing you a prosperous voyage, etc.
(Signed) "THE MERCHANT PROPRIETORS."
FOOTNOTES:
[84] These Englishmen are crazy--the Columbia was not discovered by
Captain Gray till 1792. If the above is intended as an illustration
only, the instance is as weak as the previous arguments are
inconclusive.
[85] We have seen that Mr. Thomson came a year too late.