THE OREGON QUESTION.
BY
ALBERT GALLATIN.
NEW YORK:
BARTLETT & WELFORD, 7 ASTOR HOUSE.
1846.
R. CRAIGHEAD, PRINTER, 112 FULTON STREET, NEW YORK.
THE OREGON QUESTION.
NUMBER I.
I had been a pioneer in collecting facts and stating the case. The only
materials within my reach consisted of the accounts of voyages
previously published, (including that of Maurelle, in Barrington's
Miscellanies), of the varied and important information derived from
Humboldt's New Spain, and of the voyage of the Sutil and Mexicano, the
introduction to which contains a brief official account of the Spanish
discoveries. The statement of the case was the best I was able to make
with the materials on hand, and may be found defective in many respects.
Since that time manuscript journals of several of the voyages have been
obtained at Madrid. New facts have thus been added; others have been
better analyzed, and some errors rectified. Arguments which had been
only indicated have been enforced, and new views have been suggested.
The subject, indeed, seems to be exhausted; and it would be difficult to
add anything to the able correspondence between the two Governments
which has been lately published.
Ministers charged with diplomatic discussions are not, however, in those
official papers intended for publication, to be considered as
philosophers calmly investigating the questions, with no other object
but to elicit truth. They are always, to a certain extent, advocates,
who use their best endeavors to urge and even strain the reasons that
may be alleged in favor of the claims set up by their Governments; and
in the same manner to repel, if not to deny, all that may be adduced by
the other party. Such official papers are in fact appeals to public
opinion, and generally published when there remains no hope to conclude
for the present an amicable arrangement.
But, though acting in that respect as advocates, diplomatists are
essentially ministers of peace, whose constant and primary duty is
mutually to devise conciliatory means for the adjustment of conflicting
pretensions, for the continuance of friendly relations, for preventing
war, or for the restoration of peace. It has unfortunately happened that
on this occasion, both Governments have assumed such absolute and
exclusive grounds as to have greatly increased, at least for the
present, the obstacles to an amicable arrangement.
It is morally impossible for the bulk of the people of any country
thoroughly to investigate a subject so complex as that of the respective
claims to the Oregon territory; and, for obvious reasons, it is much
less understood by the great mass of the population in England than in
the United States. Everywhere, when the question is between the country
and a foreign nation, the people at large, impelled by natural and
patriotic feelings, will rally around their Government. For the
consequences that may ensue, those who are entrusted with the direction
of the foreign relations are alone responsible. Whatever may be the
cause, to whomsoever the result may be ascribed, it appears from the
general style of the periodical press, that, with few exceptions, the
people, both in Great Britain and in the United States, are imbued with
the belief that the contested territory belongs exclusively to
themselves, and that any concession which might be made would be a boon
to the other party. Such opinions, if sustained by either Government and
accompanied by corresponding measures, must necessarily lead to
immediate collisions, and probably to war. Yet, a war so calamitous in
itself, so fatal to the general interests of both countries, is almost
universally deprecated, without distinction of parties, by all the
rational men who are not carried away by the warmth of their feelings.
In the present state of excitement, an immediate amicable arrangement
is almost hopeless; time is necessary before the two Governments can be
induced to recede from their extreme pretensions. In the meanwhile,
nothing, as it seems to me, should for the present be done, which might
increase the excitement, aggravate the difficulties, or remove the only
remaining barrier against immediate collision.
The United States claim a right of sovereignty over the whole territory.
The pretensions of the British Government, so far as they have been
heretofore exhibited, though not extending to a claim of absolute
sovereignty over the whole, are yet such as cannot be admitted by the
United States, and, if persisted in, must lead to a similar result.
If the claim of Great Britain be properly analyzed, it will be found
that, although she has incidentally discussed other questions, she in
fact disregards every other claim but that of actual occupancy, and that
she regards as such the establishment of trading factories by her
subjects. She accordingly claims a participation in the navigation of
the river Columbia, and would make that river the boundary between the
two Powers. This utter disregard of the rights of discovery,
particularly of that of the mouth, sources, and course of a river, of
the principle of contiguity, and of every other consideration whatever,
cannot be admitted by the United States. The offer of a detached
defenceless territory, with a single port, and the reciprocal offers of
what are called free ports, cannot be viewed but as derisory. An
amicable arrangement by way of compromise cannot be effected without a
due regard to the claims advanced by both parties, and to the expediency
of the dividing line.[1]
An equitable division must have reference not only to the extent of
territory, but also to the other peculiar advantages attached to each
portion respectively.
From and including Fuca Straits, the country extending northwardly
abounds with convenient sea-ports. From the 42d degree of latitude to
those Straits, there is but one port of any importance, the mouth of the
River Columbia; and this is of difficult and dangerous access, and
cannot admit ships of war of a large size. It is important only as a
port of exports. As one of common resort for supplies, or asylum, in
case of need, for the numberless American vessels engaged in the
fisheries or commerce of the Pacific, it would be almost useless, even
if in the exclusive possession of the United States. It must also be
observed that the navigable channel of the river, from its mouth to
Puget's Island, is, according to Vancouver, close along the northern
shore. Great Britain proposes that the river should be the boundary, and
that the United States should be content with the possession of the port
it offered, in common with herself. It is really unnecessary to dwell on
the consequences of such an arrangement. It is sufficient to say that,
in case of war between the two countries, it would leave the United
States without a single port, and give to Great Britain the indisputable
and exclusive control over those seas and their commerce.
The first and indispensable step towards an amicable arrangement
consists in the investigation, not so much of the superiority of one
claim over the other, as of the question whether there be sufficient
grounds to sustain the exclusive pretensions of either Government.
If the claim of the United States to the whole of the contested
territory can be sustained against Great Britain, or if the pretensions
of this Power can to their full extent be maintained against the United
States, it must be, by either party assuming that the other has no
opposite claim of any kind whatever, that there are no doubtful and
debatable questions pending between the two countries. This, if true and
maintained, must necessarily lead to war, unless one of the two Powers
should yield what it considers as its absolute right. But, if there be
any such debatable questions, the way is still open for negotiations;
and both powers may recede from their extreme pretensions, without any
abandonment of positive rights, without disgrace, without impairing
national honor and dignity.
It has been asserted that the title of the United States to the whole
Oregon territory was maintained by irrefragable facts and arguments.
These must be sought for in the correspondence lately published. They
consist--first, of the assertion of the ancient claim of Spain to the
absolute sovereignty over the whole north-west coast of America as far
north as the 61st degree of north latitude. Secondly, of the cumulated
proofs which sustain the claims of the United States to the various
portions of the territory (whether in their own right, or as derived
from the acquisition of Louisiana and the Spanish discoveries), and of
the refutation of the arguments adduced by the other party. The first
mentioned position would, if it could be sustained, be sufficient to
prove, and is, as I think, the only one that could prove, the absolute
and complete right of the United States to the whole contested
territory.
It is undoubtedly true that "Spain considered the northwest coast of
America as exclusively her own;" that this claim "had been asserted by
her, and maintained with the most vigilant jealousy, ever since the
discovery of the American continent, or nearly three centuries, as far
north as her settlements or missions extended." There were two ways of
examining the soundness of that claim; an investigation of the
principles on which it was founded, and an appeal to precedents. The
Secretary of State has abstained from discussing the principle; but he
has said that the claim of Spain to sovereignty "had never been
seriously questioned by any European nation: that it had been acquiesced
in by all European Governments." This appears to me the most vulnerable
part of his arguments.
The early charters of the British monarchs to the colonies bordering on
the Atlantic, extended from sea to sea, from the Atlantic to the Pacific
ocean, with the single exception which excluded from the grants the
places actually occupied by the subjects of any Christian nation. The
right of prior occupancy was recognized; but the general claim of Spain
to the sovereignty of the whole coast bordering on the Pacific was
utterly disregarded. Had that claim been considered as unquestionable,
had it been acquiesced in, it never could have been supposed that, in
any case whatever, England could have a right to bestow on her subjects
a single foot of land bordering on the Pacific.
Coming down to modern times, the only nations which have set up any
claims or attempted any settlements on the Pacific, north of the
country actually occupied by the Spaniards, are Russia, Great Britain,
and the United States. All three have asserted claims to the
northwestern coasts of America, irreconcilable with the universal
sovereignty claimed by Spain: Russia and England, from the time when
their flags first floated along the coast and their subjects landed on
its shores; the United States from a similar date, or at least from the
time when they acquired Louisiana.
If the right of Spain was absolute and exclusive to the whole, there was
no reason why it should not have extended beyond the 61st degree of
latitude. The right of Russia was founded only on her discoveries and
the establishment of some trading factories. She respected the right of
Spain only as far as it did not interfere with her own claim. She has,
in fact, extended this more than six degrees further south; and to this
the United States, who had acquired all the rights of Spain, have
assented by a solemn treaty. Whatever might be the boundary acquiesced
in by Spain, it was not Russia which recognized the claim of Spain; it
was Spain which recognized that her claim was not unlimited. And, let it
be also observed, that, since Spain still claimed as far north as the
61st degree of north latitude (the southern limit of the Russian
factories when first visited by Spanish navigators), the United States,
if they believed the Spanish right absolute and exclusive, ought not to
have ceded to Russia a country extending more than six degrees of
latitude along the shores of the Pacific.
Great Britain contested the exclusive claim of Spain from the year 1778,
the date of Cook's third voyage; and he was the first British navigator
that had for more than two centuries appeared on those coasts. This
doctrine she has maintained ever since. She did not resist the exclusive
claim of Spain by virtue of the Nootka convention, but prior to it. It
was on that ground that she imperiously demanded indemnity and
restoration for the property and factory of one of her subjects, which
had been forcibly taken by the Spanish Government. She even threatened
war; and the Nootka convention was the result of those transactions.
Whatever construction may at this time be given to that instrument, it
is certain at least that Spain by it conceded a portion of the absolute
and sovereign right she had till then asserted; that she yielded the
right of trade with the natives on all that part of the coast lying
north of her actual settlements; and that, by suffering the ultimate
right of sovereignty to remain in abeyance, she made that pretension
questionable which she had contended could not be called in question.
With respect to the United States, without recurring to former
negotiations which were not attended with any result, it is sufficient
to advert to the convention between them and Great Britain of the year
1818, concluded prior to the date of the treaty by which they acquired
the claims of Spain to the territory north of the 42d degree of north
latitude.
The United States at that time distinctly claimed, in their own right
and independent of the Spanish claims, that the boundary along the 49th
parallel, which had been agreed on as that between them and Great
Britain, from the Lake of the Woods to the Stony Mountains, should be
extended to the Pacific. To this division of territory Great Britain
would not accede; and the provision for a joint occupancy during the
next ensuing years was substituted. A clause was inserted that the
agreement should not be taken to affect the claims of any other Power or
State to any part of the country west of the Stony Mountains. This
provision clearly referred to the claims of Russia and Spain. The
northern and southern boundaries of the country, which the two
contracting parties might claim, were left undefined: Great Britain
probably thought herself bound by the Nootka convention to respect the
Spanish claims to the extent provided by that instrument: the United
States could not but recognize those derived from discovery, with which
they were at that time but imperfectly acquainted, since their own
claims were in a great degree derived from a similar source. But the
convention decisively proves that the United States did not acquiesce in
the antiquated claim of Spain to the absolute and exclusive sovereignty
of the whole country; since, if they had recognized that prior claim to
the whole, they could have had none whatever to any portion of it.
It is therefore undeniable that the assertion of the Spanish claim of
absolute sovereignty cannot be sustained by a presumed acquiescence on
the part of the only nations which now claim the country. It may
perhaps be said that their opposition came too late, and that they
neglected too long to protest against the Spanish pretension on the
Pacific. No stress will be laid on Drake's voyage, which had a warlike
character. But the British charters to their colonies show that those
pretensions were disregarded at a very early date. There was no occasion
for opposition or direct denial, with respect to the Pacific, until the
attention of other nations was directed towards that remote country.
This was neglected because all the commercial nations were, in their
attempts to colonize, or to conquer the foreign and till then unexplored
regions, attracted by countries far more accessible, and were
exclusively engaged in pursuits much more important. The East Indies and
the West India Islands offered a vast and lucrative field for commercial
enterprise and territorial acquisition. With respect to the continent of
America, France, England, and Holland most naturally planted their
colonies on the nearest opposite shores of the Atlantic; and they did it
in opposition to the pretended claim of Spain, which extended to the
whole of America. Although strenuously engaged in extending those
colonies westwardly, these, in the year 1754, twenty years only before
Cook's third voyage, hardly extended beyond the Mississippi. What
immediate interest could then have impelled either France or England to
enter a formal protest against the antiquated claim of Spain to a
country with which they had never attempted even to trade? And what
opportunity had occurred for doing it prior to Cook's voyage?
But, what is still more conclusive, the country in question was equally
neglected by Spain herself. Some exploring voyages, few of which are
authentic, were indeed made by Spanish navigators; and the claims which
may be derived from their discoveries have now been transferred to the
United States, so far as discovery alone can give a claim, and no
further. But, during more than two centuries that Spain had no
competitor on the Pacific, there was on her part no occupancy, no
settlement, or attempt to make a settlement. She had some missions on
the western coast of the peninsula of California: but her missions or
settlements in Northern or New California are of quite recent date; that
of the most southern (San Diego) in 1769, and that of the most northern
(San Francisco) in 1776, two years only before Cook's arrival at Nootka
Sound.
In point of fact, the contested territory had been utterly neglected by
Spain. All the energies, such as they were, of her Mexican colonies were
much more advantageously applied to the improvement of the vast and rich
countries which they had conquered, principally to the discovery and
working of the richest and most productive mines of the precious metals
as yet known.
Anson's expedition was purely military, and confined to southern
latitudes. But the narrative drew the public attention towards the
Pacific ocean, and gave a new impulse to the spirit of discovery. Almost
immediately after the peace of 1763 voyages were undertaken for that
purpose by the Governments of England and France: the Pacific was
explored: the Russians on the other hand had, more than thirty years
before, ascertained the continuity of the American continent from
Behring's Straits to Mount St. Elias. It was then, and not till then,
that Spain, or rather the Mexican Government, awakening from its long
lethargy, extended its missions to New California. In the year 1774,
Perez, with his pilot, Martinez, sailed as far north as the northern
extremity of Queen Charlotte's Island, having anchored in Nootka Sound,
and, as Martinez asserts, perceived the entrance of Fuca's Straits. New
and important discoveries were made by Quadra and Heceta in the year
1775. The sequel is well known.
But on what foundation did the claim of Spain rest? If she had indeed an
absolute right to the whole country bordering on the Pacific, derived
either from natural or international law, or from usages generally
recognized, it matters but little, as respects right, whether other
nations had acquiesced in, or opposed her claim. If there was no
foundation for that absolute and exclusive right of sovereignty, Spain
could transfer nothing more to the United States than the legitimate
claims derived from her discoveries.
The discovery gives an incipient claim not only to the identical spot
thus discovered, but to a certain distance beyond it. It has been
admitted that the claim extends generally, though not universally, as
far inland as the sources of rivers emptying into the sea where the
discovery has been made. The distance to which the right or claim
extends along the sea shore may not be precisely defined, and may vary
according to circumstances. But it never can be unlimited; it has never
been recognized beyond a reasonable extent. Spain was the first European
nation which discovered and occupied Florida. A claim on that account to
the absolute sovereignty over the whole of the Atlantic shores as far as
Hudson's Bay, or the 60th degree of latitude, would strike every one as
utterly absurd. A claim on the part of Spain to the sovereignty of all
the shores of the Pacific, derived from her having established missions
in California, would be similar in its nature and extent, and equally
inadmissible. It cannot be sustained as a natural right, nor by the
principles of international law, nor by any general usage or precedent.
The claim of Spain rested on no such grounds.
It was derived from the bull of Pope Alexander VI., which the Spanish
monarchs obtained in the year 1493, immediately after the discovery of
America by Columbus. By virtue of that bull, combined with another
previously granted to Portugal, and with modifications respecting the
division line between the two Powers, the Pope granted to them the
exclusive sovereignty over all the discoveries made or to be made in all
the heathen portions of the globe, including, it must be recollected,
all the countries in America bordering on the Atlantic, as well as those
on the Pacific ocean. Yet, even at that time, the Catholic Kings of
England, and France did not recognize the authority of the Pope on such
subjects; as evidently appears by the voyages of Cabot under the orders
of Henry VII. of England, and of Cartier under those of the King of
France, Francis I. Subsequently, the colonies planted by both countries,
from Florida to Hudson's Bay, were a practical and continued protest and
denial of the Spanish claim of absolute sovereignty over the whole of
America: whilst the acquiescence of Spain was tantamount to an
abandonment of that claim where it was resisted. Ridiculous as a right
derived from such a source may appear at this time, it was not then thus
considered by Spain; and the western boundary of Brazil is to this day
regulated by the division line prescribed by the Pope.
I am not aware of any other principle by which the claim ever was or
can be sustained, unless it be the idle ceremony of taking possession,
as it is called. The celebrated Spaniard who first discovered the
Pacific ocean, "Balboa, advancing up to the middle in the waves, with
his buckler and sword, took possession of that ocean in the name of the
King his master, and vowed to defend it, with his arms, against all his
enemies."--(_Robertson._)
I have dwelt longer on this subject than it may seem to deserve. The
assertion of the solidity of this ancient exclusive Spanish claim has
had an apparent effect on public opinion fatal to the prospect of an
amicable arrangement. I am also fully satisfied that the resort to
vulnerable arguments, instead of strengthening, has a tendency to lessen
the weight of the multiplied proofs, by which the superiority of the
American over the British claim has been so fully established.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] I allude here only to the compromise proposed by Great Britain. Her
actual claim, as explicitly stated by herself, is to the whole
territory, limited to a right of joint occupancy, in common with other
States, leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abeyance.
NUMBER II.
It has, it is believed, been conclusively proved that the claim of the
United States to absolute sovereignty over the whole Oregon territory,
in virtue of the ancient exclusive Spanish claim, is wholly unfounded.
The next question is, whether the other facts and arguments adduced by
either party establish a complete and absolute title of either to the
whole; for the United States claim it explicitly; and, although the
British proposal of compromise did yield a part, yet her qualified claim
extends to the whole. It has been stated by herself in the following
words: "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, in common with
other States, leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abeyance." And,
again: "The qualified rights which Great Britain now possesses over the
whole of the territory in question, 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. * * * * * * It is fully admitted that the United States
possess the same rights; but beyond they possess none."
In the nature of things, it seems almost impossible that a complete and
absolute right to any portion of America can exist, unless it be by
prescriptive and undisputed _actual_ possession and settlements, or by
virtue of a treaty.
At the time when America was discovered, the law of nations was
altogether unsettled. More than a century elapsed before Grotius
attempted to lay its foundation on Natural Law and the moral precepts of
Christianity; and, when sustaining it by precedents, he was compelled to
recur to Rome and Greece. It was in reality a new case, to which no
ancient precedents could apply,[2] for which some new rules must be
adopted. Gradually, some general principles were admitted, never
universally, in their nature vague and often conflicting. For instance,
discovery varies, from the simple ascertaining of the continuity of
land, to a minute exploration of its various harbors, rivers, &c.; and
the rights derived from it may vary accordingly, and may occasionally be
claimed to the same district by different nations. There is no precise
rule for regulating the time after which the neglect to occupy would
nullify the right of prior discovery; nor for defining the extent of
coast beyond the spot discovered to which the discoverer may be
entitled, or how far inland his claim extends. The principle most
generally admitted was, that, in case of a river, the right extended to
the whole country drained by that river and its tributaries. Even this
was not universally conceded. This right might be affected by a
simultaneous or prior discovery and occupancy of some of the sources of
such river by another party; or it might conflict with a general claim
of contiguity. This last claim, when extending beyond the sources of
rivers discovered and occupied, is vague and undefined: though it would
seem that it cannot exceed in breadth that of the territory on the coast
originally discovered and occupied. A few examples will show the
uncertainty resulting from those various claims, when they conflicted
with each other.
The old British charters extending from sea to sea have already been
mentioned. They were founded, beyond the sources of the rivers emptying
into the Atlantic, on no other principle than that of contiguity or
continuity. The grant in 1621 of Nova Scotia, by James the First, is
bounded on the north by the river St. Lawrence, though Cartier had more
than eighty-five years before discovered the mouth of that river and
ascended it as high up as the present site of Montreal, and the French
under Champlain had several years before 1621 been settled at Quebec.
But there is another case more important, and still more in point.
The few survivors of the disastrous expedition of Narvaez, who, coming
from Florida, did in a most extraordinary way reach Culiacan on the
Pacific, were the first Europeans who crossed the Mississippi. Some
years later, Ferdinand de Soto, coming also from Florida, did in the
year 1541 reach and cross the Mississippi, at some place between the
mouth of the Ohio and that of the Arkansas. He explored a portion of the
river and of the adjacent country; and, after his death, Moscoso, who
succeeded him in command, did, in the year 1543, build seven brigantines
or barques, in which, with the residue of his followers, he descended
the Mississippi, the mouth of which he reached in seventeen days. Thence
putting to sea with his frail vessels, he was fortunate enough to reach
the Spanish port of Panuco, on the Mexican coast. The right of discovery
clearly belonged to Spain; but she had neglected for near one hundred
and fifty years to make any settlement on the great river or any of its
tributaries. The French, coming from Canada, reached the Mississippi in
the year 1680, and ascended it as high up as St. Anthony's Falls; and La
Salle descended it in 1682 to its mouth. The French Government did, in
virtue of that second discovery, claim the country, subsequently founded
New Orleans, and formed several other settlements in the interior, on
the Mississippi or its waters. Spain almost immediately occupied
Pensacola and Nacogdoches, in order to check the progress of the French
eastwardly and westwardly; but she did not attempt to disturb them in
their settlements on the Mississippi and its tributaries. We have here
the proof of a prior right of discovery being superseded, when too long
neglected, by that of actual occupancy and settlement.
The French, by virtue of having thus discovered the mouth of the
Mississippi, of having ascended it more than fifteen hundred miles, of
having explored the Ohio, the Wabash, and the Illinois, from their
respective mouths to their most remote sources, and of having formed
several settlements as above mentioned, laid claim to the whole country
drained by the main river and its tributaries. They accordingly built
forts at Le Boeuf, high up the Alleghany river, and on the site where
Pittsburgh now stands. On the ground of discovery or settlement, Great
Britain had not the slightest claim. General, then Colonel Washington,
was the first who, at the age of twenty-two, and in the year 1754,
planted the British banner on the Western waters. The British claim was
founded principally on the ground of contiguity, enforced by other
considerations. The strongest of these was, that it could not consist
with natural law, that the British colonies, with a population of near
two millions, should be confined to the narrow belt of land between the
Atlantic and the Alleghany Mountains, and that the right derived from
the discovery of the main river should be carried to such an extent as
to allow the French colonies, with a population of fifty thousand,
rightfully to claim the whole valley of the Mississippi. The contest was
decided by the sword. By the treaty of peace of 1763, the Mississippi,
with the exception of New Orleans and its immediate vicinity, was made
the boundary. The French not only lost all that part of the valley which
lay east of that river, but they were compelled to cede Canada to Great
Britain.
It may, however, happen that all the various claims from which a title
may be derived, instead of pertaining to several Powers, and giving rise
to conflicting pretensions, are united and rightfully belong to one
nation alone. This union, if entire, may justly be considered as giving
a complete and exclusive title to the sovereignty of that part of the
country embraced by such united claims.
The position assumed by the British Government, that those various
claims exclude each other, and that the assertion of one forbids an
appeal to the others, is obviously untenable. All that can be said in
that respect is, that if any one claim is alone sufficient to establish
a complete and indisputable title, an appeal to others is superfluous.
Thus far, and no farther, can the objection be maintained. The argument
on the part of the United States in reality was, that the Government
considered the title derived from the ancient exclusive Spanish claim as
indisputable; but that, if this was denied, all the other just claims of
the United States taken together constituted a complete title, or at
least far superior to any that could be adduced on the part of Great
Britain.
It is not intended to enter into the merits of the question, which has
been completely discussed, since the object of this paper is only to
show that there remain on both sides certain debatable questions; and
that therefore both Governments may, if so disposed, recede from some
of their pretensions, without any abandonment of positive rights, and
without impairing national honor and dignity.
Although Great Britain seems, in this discussion, to have relied almost
exclusively on the right derived from actual occupancy and settlement,
she cannot reject absolutely those derived from other sources. She must
admit that, both in theory and practice, the claims derived from prior
discovery, from contiguity, from the principle which gives to the first
discoverer of the mouth of a river and of its course a claim to the
whole country drained by such river, have all been recognized to a
certain, though not well-defined extent, by all the European nations
claiming various portions of America. And she cannot deny the facts,
that (as Mr. Greenhow justly concludes) the seashore had been generally
examined from the 42d, and minutely from the 45th to the 48th degree of
latitude, Nootka Sound discovered, and the general direction of the
coast from the 48th to the 58th degree of latitude ascertained, by the
Spanish expeditions, in the years 1774 and 1775, of Perez, Heceta, and
Bodego y Quadra; that the American Captain Gray was the first who, in
1792, entered into and ascertained the existence of the River Columbia,
and the place where it empties into the sea; that, prior to that
discovery, the Spaniard Heceta was the first who had been within the
bay, called Deception Bay by Meares, into which the river does empty;
that, of the four navigators who had been in that bay prior to Gray's
final discovery, the Spaniard Heceta and the American Gray were the only
ones who had asserted that a great river emptied itself into that bay,
Heceta having even given a name to the river (St. Roc), and the entrance
having been designated by his own name (Ensennada de Heceta), whilst the
two English navigators, Meares and Vancouver, had both concluded that no
large river had its mouth there; that, in the year 1805, Lewis and
Clarke were the first who descended the river Columbia, from one of its
principal western sources to its mouth; that the first actual occupancy
in that quarter was by Mr. Astor's company, on the 24th of March, 1811,
though Mr. Thompson, the astronomer of the British Northwest Company,
who arrived at Astoria on the 15th of July, may have wintered on or near
some northern source of the river in 52 degrees north latitude; that
amongst the factories established by that American company one was
situated at the confluence of the Okanagan with the Columbia, in about
49 degrees of latitude; that the 42d degree is the boundary, west of the
Stony Mountains, established by treaty between Spain, now Mexico, and
the United States; that the 49th degree is likewise the boundary, from
the Lake of the Woods to the Stony Mountains, established by treaty
between Great Britain and the United States; and that therefore the
right of the United States, which may be derived from the principle of
contiguity or continuity, embraces the territory west of the Stony
Mountains contained between the 42d and 49th degrees of latitude.
Omitting other considerations which apply principally to the territory
north of Fuca Straits, where the claims of both parties are almost
exclusively derived from their respective discoveries, including those
of Spain, it may be rationally inferred from the preceding enumeration
that there remain various questions which must be considered by Great
Britain as being still doubtful and debatable, and that she may
therefore, without any abandonment of positive rights, recede from the
extreme pretensions which she has advanced in the discussion respecting
a division of the territory. But, although conjectures may be formed,
and the course pursued by the Government of the United States may have
an influence on that which Great Britain will adopt, it does not belong
to me to discuss what that Government may or will do. This paper is
intended for the American, and not for the English public; and my
attention has been principally directed to those points which may be
considered by the United States as doubtful and debatable.
It was expressly stipulated that nothing contained in the conventions of
1818 and 1827 should be construed to impair, _or in any manner affect_,
the claims which either of the contracting parties may have to any part
of the country westward of the Stony or Rocky Mountains. After the most
cool and impartial investigation of which I am capable, I have not been
able to perceive any claim on the part of Great Britain, or debatable
question, respecting the territory south of Fuca's Straits, but the
species of occupancy by the British Fur companies between the year 1813
and October 20th, 1818; and this must be considered in connection with
the restoration of "all territory, places, and possessions whatsoever,
taken by either party from the other during the war," provided for by
the treaty of Ghent. To this branch of the subject belongs also the
question whether the establishment of trading factories with Indians may
eventually give a right to sovereignty. My opinion was expressed in the
American counter-statement of the case, dated 19th December, 1826: "It
is believed that mere factories, established solely for the purpose of
trafficking with the natives, and without any view to cultivation and
permanent settlement, cannot, of themselves, and unsupported by any
other consideration, give any better title to dominion and absolute
sovereignty than similar establishments made in a civilized country."
However true this may be as an abstract proposition, it must be admitted
that, practically, the modest British factory at Calcutta has gradually
grown up into absolute and undisputed sovereignty over a population of
eighty millions of people.
The questions which, as it appears to me, may be allowed by the United
States to be debatable, and therefore to make it questionable whether
they have a complete right to the whole Oregon territory, are:
1st. The Nootka convention, which applies to the whole, and which,
though not of primary importance, is nevertheless a fact, and the
inferences drawn from it a matter of argument.
2dly. The discovery of the Straits of Fuca.
3dly. North of those straits; along the sea shores, the discoveries of
the British contrasted with those of the American and Spanish
navigators; in the interior, the question whether the discovery of the
mouth and the navigation of one of its principal branches, from its
source to the mouth of the river, implies without exception a complete
right to the whole country drained by all the tributaries of such river;
and also the British claim to the whole territory drained by Frazer's
river--its sources having been discovered in 1792 by Sir Alexander
Mackenzie, factories having been established upon it by the British as
early as the year 1806, and the whole river thence to its mouth having
been for a number of years exclusively navigated by British subjects.
It appears to me sufficient generally to suggest the controverted
points. That which relates to Fuca's Straits is the most important, and
deserves particular consideration.
If Fuca's voyage in 1592 could be proved to be an authentic document,
this would settle at once the question in favor of the United States;
but the voyage was denied in the introduction to the voyage of the Sutil
and Mexicano. This was an official document, published under the
auspices of the Spanish Government, and intended to vindicate Spain
against the charges, that she had contributed nothing to the advancement
of geography in those quarters. This negative evidence was confirmed by
Humboldt, who says that no trace of such voyage can be found in the
archives of Mexico. Unwilling to adduce any doubtful fact, I abstained
from alluding to it in the statement of the American case in 1826. Later
researches show that, although recorded evidences remain of the voyages
of Gali from Macao to Acapulco in 1584, of the Santa Anna (on board of
which was, as he says, Fuca himself) from Manilla to the coast of
California, where she was captured in 1587 by Cavendish, and of Vizcaino
in 1602-1603, and even of Maldonado's fictitious voyage in 1588, yet no
trace has been found in Spain or Mexico of Fuca's, or any other similar
voyage, in 1692, or thereabout.
On reading with attention the brief account published by Purchas, I will
say that the voyage itself has much internal evidence of its truth, but
that the inference or conclusion throws much discredit on the whole. The
only known account of the voyage is that given verbally at Venice in
1596, by Fuca, a Greek pilot, to Mr. Lock, a respectable English
merchant, who transmitted it to Purchas.
Fuca says that he had been sent by the Viceroy of Mexico to discover the
straits of Anian and the passage thereof into the sea, which they called
the North Sea, which is _our Northwest Sea_; that between 47 and 48
degrees of latitude he entered into a broad inlet, through which he
sailed more than twenty days; and, being then come into the North Sea
already, and not being sufficiently armed, he returned again to
Acapulco. He offered then to Mr. Lock to go into England and serve her
Majesty in a voyage for the discovery perfectly of the Northwest passage
into the South Sea. If it be granted that the inlet through which he
had sailed was really the same as the straits which now bear his name,
that sea into which he emerged, and which he asserts to be _our
Northwest Sea_, must have been that which is now called Queen
Charlotte's Sound, north of Quadra and Vancouver's Island, in about 51
degrees of latitude. _Our Northwest Sea_ was that which washes the
shores of Newfoundland and Labrador, then universally known as far north
as the vicinity of the 60th degree of latitude. Hudson's Straits had not
yet been discovered, and the discovery of Davis's Straits might not be
known to Fuca. But no navigator at that time, who, like he, had sailed
across both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, could be ignorant that
the northern extremity of Newfoundland, which lies nearly in the same
latitude as the northern entrance of Fuca's Straits, is situated sixty
or seventy degrees of longitude east of that entrance. The only way to
reconcile the account with itself is, to suppose that Fuca believed that
the continent of America did not, on the side of the Atlantic, extend
further north than about the 60th degree, and was bounded northwardly by
an open sea, which extended as far west as the northern extremity of the
inlet through which he had sailed. It is true nevertheless that, between
the years 1774 and 1792, there was a prevailing opinion amongst the
navigators that Fuca had actually discovered an inlet leading towards
the Atlantic. Prior to the year 1787 they were engaged in seeking for
it, and the Spaniards had for that purpose explored in vain the sea
coast lying south of the 48th degree; for it is well known that Fuca's
entrance lies between the 48th and 49th, and not between the 47th and
48th degrees of latitude, as he had announced.
The modern discovery of that inlet is due to Captain Barclay, an
Englishman, commanding the Imperial Eagle, a vessel owned by British
merchants, but which was equipped at, and took its departure from
Ostend, and which sailed under the flag of the Austrian East India
Company. The British Government, which has objected to the American
claim derived from Captain Gray's discovery of the mouth of the river
Columbia, on the ground that he was a private individual, and that his
vessel was not a public ship, cannot certainly claim anything in virtue
of a discovery by a private Englishman, sailing under Austrian colors.
In that case, and rejecting Fuca's voyage, neither the United States nor
England can lay any claim on account of the discovery of the straits.
Subsequently, the Englishman, Meares, sailing under the Portuguese flag,
penetrated, in 1768, about ten miles into the inlet, and the American,
Gray, in 1789, about fifty miles. The pretended voyage of the sloop
Washington throughout the straits, under the command of either Gray or
Kendrick, has no other foundation than an assertion of Meares, on which
no reliance can be placed.
In the year 1790 (1791 according to Vancouver) the Spaniards, Elisa and
Quimper, explored the straits more than one hundred miles, discovering
the Port Discovery, the entrance of Admiralty Inlet, the Deception
Passage, and the Canal de Haro. In 1792 Vancouver explored and surveyed
the straits throughout, together with their various bays and harbors.
Even there he had been preceded in part by the Sutil and Mexicano; and
he expresses his regret that they had advanced before him as far as the
Canal del Rosario.
Under all the circumstances of the case, it cannot be doubted that the
United States must admit that the discovery of the straits, and the
various inferences which may be drawn from it, are doubtful and
debatable questions.
That which relates to a presumed agreement of Commissioners appointed
under the treaty of Utrecht, by which the northern boundary of Canada
was, from a certain point north of Lake Superior, declared to extend
westwardly along the 49th parallel of latitude, does not appear to me
definitively settled. As this had been assumed many years before, as a
positive fact, and had never been contradicted, I also assumed it as
such and did not thoroughly investigate the subject. Yet I had before me
at least one map (name of publisher not recollected), of which I have a
vivid recollection, on which the dividing lines were distinctly marked
and expressly designated, as being in conformity with the agreement of
the Commissioners under the treaty of Utrecht. The evidence against the
fact, though in some respects strong, is purely negative. The line,
according to the map, extended from a certain point near the source of
the river Saguenay, in a westerly direction, to another designated
point on another river emptying either into the St Lawrence or James's
Bay; and there were, in that way, four or five lines following each
other, all tending westwardly, but with different inclinations
northwardly or southwardly, and all extending, from some apparently
known point on a designated river, to another similar point on another
river; the rivers themselves emptying themselves, some into the river
St. Lawrence and others into James's Bay or Hudson's Bay, until, from a
certain point lying north of Lake Superior, the line was declared to
extend along the 49th degree of latitude, as above stated. It was with
that map before me that the following paragraph was inserted in the
American statement of December, 1826:
"The limits between the possessions of Great Britain in North
America, and those of France in the same quarter, namely, Canada
and Louisiana, were determined by Commissioners appointed in
pursuance of the treaty of Utrecht. From the coast of Labrador to a
certain point North of Lake Superior, those limits were fixed
according to certain metes and bounds; and from that point the line
of demarcation was agreed to extend indefinitely due west, along
the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude. It was in conformity
with that arrangement that the United States did claim that
parallel as the northern boundary of Louisiana. It has been
accordingly thus settled, as far as the Stony Mountains, by the
convention of 1818 between the United States and Great Britain; and
no adequate reason can be given why the same boundary should not be
continued as far as the claims of the United States do extend, that
is to say, as far as the Pacific ocean."