OCR Interpretation

The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 184?-1851, January 14, 1846, Image 1

Image and text provided by Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84028793/1846-01-14/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

- 1?
& jmniln Kcrospgpcr SVgticnltntt, Politics, Ncros, Citcrotutc, ffistorij, Btrjgropljn, iflccl)qntf3, Satis, HSoctxy, Slmnstmmt.
One dollar nnd fifty cents per annum il paid in ad--vanccs
two dollars if onid dtirinz the year: or two dot
Stars and fifty cents nt the end ol the yenr. No paper
discontinued until nil arrearages nre puiil. pg-iticse
.conditions will be strictly adhered to.
One square (1-2 lines or leas) 3 insertions, $ 1 00
iEvery subsequent publication, " " .
tf.on;;er advortisemeiits charged in proportion.
- .Advertising by the year, with the privilege of
changing at pleasure, - - - 8 00
.Medical Advertisements charged like all others.
B. STAXTON. - - - - 8. O. f PPARD.
Attorneys at Law and Solicitors in Chancery,
WILL practicelaw in the courts of Harison coun
ty Business intrusted to them will receive
Hheir united attention. Office opposite the Post Office.
Cadiz, Feb. 2d, 1843.
" liTlhU continue to practice in Harrison and the
V V adjoinins Counties.
Oilico opposite the public offices. Aug. 18, 1842
Office oppoiite the Post Ojjlce. Dec. 21, 1843
Office, Fourth street, above Smithfield,
jly!)-y Pittsburgh.
ill. H. VRIIT11AUT,
Attorney and Counsellor at Law and Solicitor,
OFFICE, on Warren street, in the building recently
occupied by Z. Daylcss Esq.
Cadiz, April, 11, 1845.
B. S. Coivkn, St.Clairsville. - J. Sharon, Cadiz.
Attorneys at Law and Solicitors in Chancery,
fTlHE above-partnership will extend to all cases in
I Harrison court of common pleas, and supreme
court, in which the parties are originally employed.
All business entrusted to their care will receive the
prompt attention of the firm.
July 12, 1815. jylG-Gm
A LL professional business entrusted to my care in
,. counties of Harrison, Jufferson, IJolmont, Monroe,
Guernsey, Tuscarawas, Coshocton, Holmes, Carroll,
Stark and Wayne, will be faithfully attended to.
(gj- The set vices of John D. Cummins, Esq. will be
secured, ll desired hy suitors.
()ificr. on Steubnneilk Slreet,opposilepublic buildings.
D 11. J. B. M ' G R K W
TTAVING located in Cadiz for the purpose of prne-
.X tising I'hysic in its various branclies solicits a
share of public patronage.
Office on Market St., in tho room formerly occupied
by Dr. W. II. Hlemmons.
April 16, 1845,-ly.
Bridgeport, ().
W Flare determined to sell all articles in our line,
at as low prices as they can be obtained in
"Wheeling June 4 C. & L.
Wholesale Grocers, Commission Mer
And dealers in Pittsburgh Manufactured Articles, No.
16, Liberty street, opposite the head of Smiti field St.,
rittsuurgh, l'n. ol-bm
VV. B. HAYS & CO.,
Agents for Washington Cotton Factory.
Wholosalo and Retail Dealers in Gro
ceries, Dry Goods,
Boots, Shoes, and Pittsburgh Manufactures, No. 223,
Liberty street, Pittsburgh, Pa. ol-um.
Wholesale and Retail Grocer, and
Dealer in Produce,
At W. Greer's old stand, No. 44, corner of Market and
Liberty streets, Pittsburgh. The best groceries kept
constantly on nana. ol-tm
Rectifying Distiller, and Wholesale
Dealer in Groceries,
Wines and Liquors, No. 145, corner of Liberty street
ona Brewery alley, l ittsnurgti, l'n. ol-bm
Wholcsalo Grocers, Commission Mcr
And dealers in nil kinds of Country Produce; Also,
Iron, Nails, Glass, and Pittsburgh Manufactures ee
nerally, corner of Liberty and Hand streets, Pilts-
Durgn.ra. 01-um"
Wholesale Dialer in
Boots, Shoes, and Morocco Leather,
No. 70, Wood street, Pittsburgh. ol-6m
Re-opened on Penn street, near the Canal, Pittsburgh.
ol-3m B. WEAVER, Proprietor.
No. 124, Liberty street, Pittsburgh.
N. B. Cash paid fur all grades clean washed wool.
Wholesale Grocers and Commission
And dealers in Pittsburgh Manufactures nnd Produce,
. No. 194, Liberty street, Pittsburgh, Pn. ol-6m
(Late Paulson & Gill,)
Fashionable Hat& Cap Manufacturer,
No. 83, Woo.! it., one door above 4ih, Pittsburgh.
TTHE undersigned having taken the Ware House
I formerly occupied by Fleming nnd Manser, are
prepared to receive nd forward nil Kinds of goods
and country produce on the most reasonable terms.
eplO DOYLE and DRENNEN, Stcubenvijle.
f I HIE Partnership heretofore existing between G. J.
I MORGAN and H. J. BUUNOT hot .been dissolved,
nnd the undersigned no longer holds himself responsi
ble for debt contracted by his late partner.
Pittsburgh, Nov. 13. H.J. BRUNOT.
AMILTON'S COUGH SYRUP, the best medi
dns extant for coughs, colds, and all lunir com
plaints, for sale by JOHN BE ALL. may 14.
Oh, Tnou! to whom the shades of night .
Are radiant, nt the noorwlny light . .
Thou ! who art Light Thyself the stream
Whence light of Sun and Stars doth gleam:
To Thee, 1 raise my Evening Prayer,
And supplicate Thv guardian care.
Oh, Thou ! whoso word bid chaos yield
The countless worlds which etud the field
Of azure space which keepeth still
In motion ceaseless by Thy will
Those brilliant orbs deign now to hear
Thy suppliant creatures' evening prayer.
Spurn not, oh Goo, from Mercy's throne
A child, who comes his guilt to own
But pardon grant, to him who dies.
If this his prayer his God denies
Let me. thy spirit breathing, hear,
"Son, I forgive be of good cheer,"
And Father, I've a boon to crave
For one, whiim Thou, in mercy, gave
To share with me, my lot in life.
My fondly prized, tho' absent wife
He Thou with her, and oh ! may she
Be render'd meet to dwell with Thee.
Oh, bless her, wiih Thy guardian care
And niay,our Child that blessing share.
Guard both fromill '. within thine arm.
If they're embraced, they're safe from harm
And may the hope "We'll meet again,"
With joy, on Earth not prove in vain.
But oh! if this Thy will denies.
And here below, our mutual eyes
Shall no more gleam with mutual love
Oh! grant that we may meet above!
Redeemed in glor at thy throne,
May I rejoin mv VVife and Son.
From the Cleveland Pluindealer.
The Elopement.
In '.he items of gossip on the pave is (lie elope
ment, ay, a well authenticated .elopement, deci
dedly racy, and passably romantic, which came
oli, or rather went oil this week.
At Oberlin, a sort of factory where they spin
out low-j ressurc parsons, and dub the girls
"Mistresses of Art, was our heroine. She was
a quadroon from the South; such graces as hers
an olive complexion, the red bursting through
the brown hair black, and long as nights in win
ter limbs delicate, and form straight as a su
gar cane, and eyes like deep flowing streams
would win lovyers any day in upper-crust socie
ty, any hour in Obeilin.
Well Hose (wo must cull her so, though by
any other name, &c, you know.) bad two of
them. The first was a colored theologian of the
dark and mystical brotherhood of divinity stu
dents, the pride and boast of the faculty, and in
prospectu, the perfections preachers, lntellcc
tual, melancholy, blue, broad dickey, long face,
spiritual minded. lie made love bv mathemat
ies, talked Latin, and, ns the Iloosici's say, 'laid
hirnscll out, nnd 'did his prettiest. The 'most
potent, grave and reverend signiois' backed him,
but Rose didn't fancy the spiritual d irkie he
might be 'a nice young man,' 'a morel man, and
acquainted wild tho deud languages1 but, he
eouhhi't come in.
itose loved another; her heart, like a young
swarm of honey-loving bees settled upon another
sunflower.- I hat other was a travelled gentle
man of color. He had sunned himself under the
Tropics, rambled in lexico,vag:ihonded in Tex
as, and overran all the States of the Union, was
a bird of passage, played the guitar liko a Span
iard, sung like a Troubadour, talked Spanish,
jabbered French, and had the gift of tongues
had had adventures, and moving accidents, and
hair-breadth 'scapes told tier talcs of his travel's
"Wherein of nntres vast, and deserts wide
It was his hint to speak, such was tho proi-css;
And of the Cannibals that each other eat,
The anthropophagi, and men whose heads
Do grow upon their shoulders."
To which Rose, liko Desdemona, did serious
ly incline. Tho 'down river songs,' and his par
ody of 'Oberlin gals, wont ve corno out to-night,
and dance by the light ob do moon,' finished his
But every body knows that the course of true
love never did run like a railroad; more like a
genuine corduroy turnpike with toll gates every
half-a-mile; our here would have Rose, but the
Fuculty and the rivalry, the trouble and all, sent
him to Cleveland.
Here be taught music, wrote for the papers,
translated Spanish, louoed to translate Rose out
of the Vulgate Oberlin into the very regions of
the matrimonial paradise, and he told her to
for he cultivated the belles-lettres with her. So
they appointed a meeting our hero is on the
spot just in the 'Suporbs' of Oberlin, with one
of Gurley's inside-oflhree-minute-nags, and Rose
walks out, jumps into the buggy, and away ihey
whirl towards Cleveland.
But the spiritual young thcologtte is afte, the
lovyers in hot haste; he arrived at Cleveland and
ransacked the town, but tho pair were on their
way to Pittsburgh, that Gretna Green of this
ouckeye county. 'IMighl is Cupid a day, tho po
et's say.
There was a 'pretty considerable sprinkling'
of stars abroad, though not the first shadow of a
moon. Our hero dashed on towards tho Penn
sylvania line.
"He rode all night,
Till brand dny light
And married that gal in the morning!"
That's the story. Tho poor disappointed the-
ologue went back to Oborlin with a dark cloud
on his brow. 'Blessed are the poor in spirits.'
Jem,1 said he, to his classmate, 'Can you tell
mo, widout your vocuiiierry, why 1 so like de
mn wid de two wooden legs?'
Giv'g It right up, precmptonly, Sam. I can't
tell you.'
'Well, said Sam, 'becaso aa how somebody
else is tlamlin' in my boots P
'Ila, ha! 'sensitive to de last, n'gga!'
It is very hard to deny a craving appetite, or
to subdue a vicious habit; but is it not harder to
lose everlasting happiness for a momentary indul
gence, and, like tho wretched Esau, to sell hea
ven in reversion for a mess of pottngo.
A true sportsman will never quail at shooting
a quail, nor a milkmaid turn pale at lifting a pail
over a pail.
. (J.B.2.)
Dkfartmknt of State,.
Washington, Auc. 30, 1845
The undertfimied Secretary of Slate of the
United States, deems it bis duty to make some
observations in reply to the statement of bet
tii Manic Majesty's envoy extraordinary and min
ister plenipotentiary, marked R. P., and dated
29th July, 1845.
rrcliiniiiary lo the discussion, it is necessary
to fix our attention upon the precise question
under consideration, in tho present stage of the
negotiation. This question simply is, were the
titles of Spain and the United States, when uni
ted by the Florida treaty on the 22d of Febru
ary, 1819, good as against Great Britain, to the
Oregon territory as far north as the Russian line,
in the latitude of 54 deg. 40 mm.? If they were,
it will be admitted this this whole territory now
belongs to the United States.
The undersigned again remarks that it is not
his" pin pose to repeat the argument by which his
predecessor, Mr. Calhoun, has deiuonsl rated the
American title "lo the entire regon drained by
the Colombia river i.nd its hrs'iicnes." He will
not thus impair its force.
It is contended, on the part of Great Britain
that the United States acquired and hold the
Spanish title subject to the terms nnd conditions
of the Nootka Sound convention, concluded be
tween Great Britain and Spain, at the Escurial,
on-the 28th October, 1790.
In opposition lo the argument of the under
signed contained in his statement marked J. B.,
maintaining that this convention had been annul
led by the war between Spain and Great Britain,
in 179(5, and has never since been revived by the
parties, the British plenipotentiary, in his state
ment marked R. P., has taken the following po
! "That when Spain concluded with the
United States the treaty of 1819, commonly call
od the Florida treaty, the convention concluded
between the former power and Great Britain in
1790, was considered by the parties to it be all
in lorce. '
And 2. "But that, even if no such treaty had
ever existed, Great Britain would stand, with re
ference to a claim to the Oregon terntory, in a
position nt least as favorable as the United
The undersigned will follow, step by slep,the
argument of the British plenipotentiary insuppotl
of these propositions.
The British plenipotentiary states ''that the
treaty of 1790 is not appealed to bv the British
government, as the American plenipotentiary
seems to suppose, ns their 'main reliance' in the
present discussion," but to show that, by the
Florida treaty of 1819, the United States acqui
red no right to exclusive dominion over any part
of the Urenon territory.
The undersigned had believed that ever since
1 82f, the Nootka convention had been regarded
hy the British government ns tbei r main, it not
their onlv reliance. The very nature and pecu
liar v of their claim identified it with ibe con
struction which they have impossd upon this con
vention, and necessarily excludes every other
basis of title. W!int, but to accord with this
construction, could have caused Messrs. Huskin
son nnd Addington, tho British enmnrssioners,
in specifying their title, on the 16th December,
183(5. to declare "that Great Biitain claims no
exclusive sovereignty over any portion of that
territory. Her present claim, not in respect lo
any i art, hut to the whole, is limited to a right of
joint occupancy in commop with other slates,
leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abey
ance." And again. "IJv that convention (ot
Nootka) it was agreed that all parts ofthe North
western const of America, not already occupied
at that time by either of the contracting parties,
should thenceforward be equally open to the sub
jects of both for all purposes of cornmercd and
settlement the sovereignty remaining in abey
ance." But on this subject we ate not left to
mere inferences, however clear. The British
commissioners, in their statement from which the
undersigned has just quoted, have virtually aban
doned any other title which great Britain may
have previously ssserted to the territory in dis
pute, and expressly declare "thai whatsover that
title may have been, however, either on tho part
of Great Britain or on the part of Spain, prior lo
the convention of 1790, it was thenceforward to
be traced no longer in vague narratives of dis
coveries, several of them admitted to be. apocry
phal, but in the text and stipulations of that con
vention itself ,"
And again, in summing up their whole case,
(hey say;
"Admitting thai the United States have acqui
red all the rights which Spain possessed up to
tho treaty of Florida, either in virtue of discove
ry, or, as is pretended, in right of Louisiann.
Great Britain maintains that the extent of these
rights, ns well as the rights of Great Brita'n, are
fixed and defined by the convention of Nootka,"
Sec &.c, Sec,
Trie undersigned, after a careful examination,
can discover nothing in the note of the present
British plenipotentiary to Mr. Ualhoun, of the
12th September last, to impair the force of these
declarations and admissions of his predecessors.
On the contrary, its general tone is in perl'ecl
accordance with them.
Whatever may be the consoquonces then,whe-
ther for good or for evil whether to strengthen
or to destroy the British claim it is now loo late
for the British government lo vary their position.
If the Nootka convention confers upon them no
such rights as they claim, they cannot at (his Inte
hour go behind its provisions, and set up claims
which in 182t5, they admitted had been merged
"in tlin text and stipulations of that convention
The undersigned regrets that the British plen
potentiary has not noticed hit exposition of the
true cons ruction of the Nootka convention. He
had endeavored, and ho behoves successfully, to
prove that this treaty was transient in its very na
tures that il conferred upon Great Britain no right
but that of merely trading with the Indians whilst
the country should remain unsettled, and making
the necessary establishments for this purpose; and
oignty of Spain over the territory. The British'
plenipotentiary has not attempted to resist these
conclusions. Ifihev he fair and legitimate.then
il would not avail deal Britain, even if she
should prove the Nooika convention to be still in
force. On the contrary, this convention, if the
construction placed upon it by the unders'gned
be correct, contains u clear virtunl admission on
the part of Great Britain that Spain held the e-
venlual right of sovereignly over ihe whole dis
puted territory; and consequently that it now be
longs to the United Stoles.
The value of this admission, made in 1790, is
the same whether or not the convention continu
ed to exist until the present day. But he is wil
ling to leave this point on the uncontroverted
argument contained in his former statement.
But is the Nootka Sound convention still in
force? The British plenipotentiary does not con
test the clear general principle of public law,
"that war terminates all subistinc treaties be
tween the belligerent powers." Hecpntends,bow
ever, in the first nlace. that this convention is
partly commercial; and that, so far as it partakes
of this character, it was revived by the treaty
concluded at Madrid on the 28th August, 1814,
which declares "that all the treaties ol commerce
which subsisted bet ween the two parlies (Great
Britain and Spain) in 179(5, were thereby ratified
and confirmed;" and 2d, "that in other respects
it must be considered as an acknowledgement of
aubsisting rights an admission of certaiu prin
ciples of international law," not to be be revoked
by war.
In regard to the first proposition, the under
signed is satisfied to leave the question, rest up-
on Ins lornier argument, as ihe British plempo-ientia-'hjis
contented himself with merely assert
ing ?.,'( .tfet, that the commercial portion of the
Noo,,Ai Sound convention was revived by the
ireii'iijjf 1814, without even specifying what he
cotU;jyj.js lobe that portion of that convention.
If liie'undorsigned had desired tosrrcngihen his
former position, he might have repeated with
great ellect the argument contained in the note
of Lord Aberdeen lo tho Duke of Stotomayor,
dated 30th June, 1845, in which his lordship
charly established that all the treaties of com
merce subsisting between Great Britain and
Spain previous to 1790 were confined to the
treaty with Spain alone, and did not embrace her
colonies and remote possessions.
The second proposition of the British plenipo
tentiary deserves greater attention. Does Ihe
Nootka Sound convention belong to that class of
treaties containing "an acknowledgement of sub
sisting rights an admission of certain principles
of international law"' not to be abrogated bv tvar?
iiau opam by tins convention acknowledged 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 jurisdiction, there would have been
much force in the argument. But such an ad
mission never was made, and never was intended
to be made, by Spain. The Nootka convention
is arbitrary and artificial in the highest degree,
and is anything rather (ban the mere acknowl
edgement of simple nnd elementary principles
consecrated by the law ol nations. In all its
provisions it is expressly confined to Great Bri
lain and Spain, and acknowledges no right what
ever in any third power to interfere with the
iortli-vv(;st coast el America. Neither in us
terms, nor in its essence, does it contain any ack
nowledgement of previously subsisting territorial
rights in Great Britain, or any other nation. It
is strictly confined to future engagements; and
these are of a most peculiar character. Even
under the construction of its provisions maintain
ed by Great Britain, her claim does not extend
to plant colonics; which she would have 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 remain
ing in abeyance? Not separate and distinct col
onies, but scattered settlements, intermingled
with each other, over the whole surface of the
territory, for the single purpose of trading with
the Indians, to all of which the subjects of each
power sho.ild have free access, he right of exclu
sive dominion remaining suspended. Surely it
cannot be successfully contended that such a trea
ty is "an admission of certain principles of inter
national law," so sacred and so perpetual in their
nature as not to be annulled by war. On the
contrary, from ihe character of its provisions, it
cannot be supposed for a single moment that it
was intended for any purpose but that of a mere
temporary arrangement between Great Britain
and Spain. The law of nations recognizes no
such principles in regard to unappropriated ter
ritory as those embraced in this treaty; and the
British plenipotentiary must fail in the attempt lo
prove that it contains "an admission of certain
principles of international law" which will sur
vive the shock of war.
But tho British plenipotentiary contends that
from the silence of Spain during the negotiations
of 1818, between Great Britain and the United
States respecting the Oregon territory, as well as
"from her silenco with respect to the continued
occupation by the British of their settlements in
the Columbia territory, subsequently to Ihe con
vention of 1814," it may fairly "be inferred that
Spain considered the stipulations of the Nootka
convention, and the principles therein laid down,
to bo still in force."
The undersigned cannot imagine a case
where the obligations of a treaty, once extin
guished by war, can be revived without a positive
agreement to this eftuct between the parties.
Even if both parties, after the conclusion of
peace, should perform positive and unequivocal
acts in accordance with its provisions,these must
be construed as merely voluntary, to bo disconti
nued by either nt pleasure. But in tho present
case it is not even pretended that Spain perform
ed any act in accordance with the Convention
of Nootka Sound, after her treaty with Great
Britain of 1814. Her more silence is relied up
on to revive that Convention.
Tho undersigned asserts confidently that nei
ther by public nor private law will the mere si
lence of one party, whilst another is encroaching
upon his rights, even if he had knowledge of this
encroachment, deprive bun of those rights. If
this principle be correct, as applied to individuals,
it holds with much greater lorce in regard to na
tions. Tho feeble may not be in a condition lo
complain against the powerful; and thus the en
croachmem of the strong would convert HBclf in
to a perfect tide against tho weak.
In the present case, it was scarcely possible
for Spain even to have learned the pendency of
negotiations between the United Slates and Great
Britain, in relation to the north-west coast of A-
rnerica, 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
uritain was not signed at London until the 20th
October, 1818 but four months previous to ihe
date of the Florida treaty;. and the ratifications
were not exchanged, and tho convention pub
lished, until theSOth of January, 1819.
nr-sides, the negotiations which terminated in
Ihe Florida treaty had been commenced as ear
ly as December, 1815, and were in full progress
on the 20th October, 1818, when the convention
was signed between Great Britain and the Uni
ted States. It does not appear, therefore, that
Spain had any knowledge of the existence ofj
these negotiations; and even if this were other
wise, she would have no motive to complain, as
she was in the very act of transferring nil her
rights to the United States.
But, says the British plenipotentiary, Spain
looked in silence on the continued occupation by
the British of the settlement in the Columbia
teiritory subsequently to the convention of 1814;
and, therefore, she considered the Nootka Sound
convention to be still in force. Tho period of
this silence, so far as it couid affect Spain, com
menced on the 28th day of August, 1814, the
date of ihe additional articles to tho treaty of
Madrid, nnd terminated on the 22d February,
1819, the date of the Florida treaty. Is there the
least reason from this silence to infer an admis
sion by Spain of the continued existence of the
Nootka Sound oonvention? In the first place,
this convention was entirely confined 'to landing
on the coasts of those seas, in places not alrea
dy occupied, for (he purpose of carrying on their
commerce with the natives of the country, or of
making settlements there.' It did not extend
to the interior. At the date of this convention,
no person deemed that British traders from Can
ada or lluds )ii's Bay would cross the Rocky
Mountains and encroach on the rights of Spain
from that quarter. Great Britain had never made
any settlement on the north-western coast of A
merica from the date of the Nootka Sound con
vention, until the 22d February, 1819; nor, so
far as the undersigned is informed, has she done
so down to Ihe present moment.
Spain could not, therefore, have complained
of any such settlement. In regard lo tho en
croachments which had been made from the in
terior by tho North-west Company, neither Spain
nor the rest of the world had any specific know
ledge of their existence. But even if the British
plenipotentiary had brought such knowledge
home to her which he has not attempted she
had been exhausted by one long and bloody war,
and was then engaged in another with her colo
nies; and was, besides, negotiating for the trans
fer of all her righls on the north-west coast of
America to the United States. Surely these
were sufficient reasons for her silence, without
inferring that she acquiesced in tho continued
existence of the Nootka convention. If Spain
had entertained the least idea that the Nootka
convention was still in force, her goo . faith and
her national honor would have caused her to
communicate this fact to the United States be
fore she had ceded this territory lo them for an
ample consideration. Not the least intimation
of this kind was ever communicated.
Like Great Biitain in 1818, Spain in 1819 had
no idea thai the Nooika Sound Convention was
in force. It had passed away and was forgotten.
The British plenipotentiary alleges, that the
reason why Great Biitain did not assert the ex
istence of the Nootka Convention during the ne
gotiation between the two governments in 1818,
was, that no occasion had arisen for its interpo
sition, the American government than not having
acquired Ihe title of Spain. It is very true that
the United Slates had not then acquired the
Spanish title; but is it possible to imagine, that
throughout the whole negotiation, the British
commissioners, had they supposed tliisconvention
to have been in existence, would have remained
entirely silent in regard to a treaty which, as
Great Britain now alleges, gave her equal and
co-ordinate rights with Spain to the whole north
west coast of America? At that period Great
Britain confined her claims to those of discovery
and purchase from the Indians. How vastly
alio could have strengthened tlieso claims, had
she then supposed the Nooika convention to be
in force, with her present construction of its pro
visions. Even in 1824 il was first introduced into
the negotiation, not by her commissioners, but
by Mr. Rush, the American plenipotentiary.
But the British plenipotentiary argues, that
'the United Stales can found no claim on discov
ery, exploration and settlement effected previ
ously to the Florida treaty, without admitting the
principles ol the INootka convention;' 'nor can
they appeal to any exclusive right acquired by
the Florida treaty, without upsetting ail claims
adduced in their own proper right, by reason of
discovery, exploration, and scttlemcntanlecedeni
to that arrangement.
This is a most ingenious method of making
two distinct and independent titles held by the
same nation worse than ono of arraying them
against each other, nnd thus destroying the va
lidity of both. Docs he forget that the United
Stales own both 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 ac
quired the Spanish title under the Florida trea
ty. 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 interfere
in this manner? Was it ever imagined in any
court of justice (hat the acquisition of a new ti
tle destroyed the old one: and vice versa, that
the purchase of the old title destroyed the new
one; In a question ot mere private right, il
would be considered absurd, if a stranger to both
titles should say to the party who had made a set
tlement, you shall not avail yourself of your pos
session, because this was taken in violation of
another outstanding title: and although I must
admit that you have acquired (his outstanding li-
tlo, yet even this avails you nothing, uecause.
having taken possession previously to your pur
chase, you thereby evinced that you did not re
gard such title as valid. And yet such is the
I mode by which the British Plenipotentiary has
attempted 4o destroy both the American, and
Spanish titles. On the contrary, in Ihe case men
tioned, the'iMifsession and the outstanding title
being united in the same individual, these con-
joined would bo as perfect as if both had been
vested in him from the beginning.
Ihe undersigned, whilst strongly asserting
both these titles, and believing each of them se
parately to be good as against Great Britain, has
studiously avoided instituting any comparison
between them. But admitting for the sake of
argument merely, that the discovery hy Captain
Gray of the mouth of ihe Columbia, its explora
tion by Lewis &. Claike, and the settlements on
its banks at Astoria, were encroachments on
Spain, she, and she alone, had a right to com
plain. Gieut Britain was a third party; and, as
such, had no right lo interfere in (he question
between Spain and Ihe United States. But
Spain, instead of complaining of tlieso nets as
encroachments, on the 22d February, 1819, by
the f lorida treaty, translorred the whole to the
United States. From that moment nil possible
conflict between the two li'.les was ended, both
being united in the same parly. 1 wo titles
which might have conflicted therefore, were thus
blended together. The title now vested in the
United State is just as strong as though every
act of discovery exploration, nnd settlement on
the part of both .powers had been peiformed by
Spain alone, before she had transferred all her
rights lo the United Slates. The two powers
are one in ihis respect; the two titles are wie
and, as the undersigned will show hereaftetyhey
serve lo confirm and strengthen each other. If
Great Britain, instead of the United Stales, had
acquired the title of Spain, she might have con
tended that those acts of the United Stntes were
encroachments, but, standing in the attitude of a
stranger to bolk titles, she has no right to inter
fere in the maltcr.
The undersigned deems it unnecessary to pur
sue this branch of the subject further than to
state, that the United Stales, before Ihey had
acquired ihe title of Spain, always H ealed that ti
tle 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 as good
as that of Great Britain,' and the convention of
October 20, 1818, unlike that of Nootka Sound,
reserved the claims of any other power or State
to any part of the said country. This reserva
tion could have been intended but for Spain a
lone. But, ever since ihe United Slates acquired
the Spanish title, they have always asserted and
maintained their right in the strongest terms up
to the Russian possessions, even whilst offering,
tor the sake ot harmony and peace, to divide the
territory in dispute by the 49th parallel of lati
tude. The British plenipotentiary, then, has entirely
failed to sustain his position, that iho United
Slates can found no claim on discovery, explora
tion and settlement, without admitting the prin
ciples of the Nootka convention. That conven
tion died on the commencement of Ihe war be
tween Spain and England, in 1796, and has ne
ver since been revived.
The British plenipotentiary next 'endeavors to
prove that, even if the Nootka Sound Convention
had nevr existed, the position of Great Biitain
in regard to her claim, whether in regard to tho
whole or to any particular portion of the Oregon
territory, is at least as good as that of the United
States.' In order to establish this position, ho
must show that the British claim is equal in va
lidity to the titles of both Spain and the United
States. These can never now be separated.-':
They are one and tho same. Different and di
verging as they may have been before the Flori
da treaty, they are now blended togeiher nnd
identified. The separate discoveries, explorations
and settlements of tho two powers previous to
that date must now bo considered as if they had
all been made by the United States alone. Under
ihi palpable view of the subject, the tindeisign-
ed was surprised to find that in tho comparison
and contrast instituted by the British plenipoten
tiary between the claim of Great Britain and that
of the United States, he had entirely omitted to
refer to the discoveries, explorations and settle
ments made by Spain. I he undersigned will
endeavor to supply the omission.
But before he proceeds to the main argument
on this point, ho feels himself constrained to ex
press his surprise that the British plenipotentiary
should again have invoked in support of ihe Bri
tish title the inconsistency between the Spanish
and American branches of tho title of Ihe Uni
ted Stales. The undersigned cannot forbear to
congratulate himself upon the fact, that a gentle- .
man ot Mr. rakenham's acknowledged ability .
has been reduced to the necessity of relying
chiefly upon such a support for sustaining the
British pretensions. Staled in brief, the argu
ment is this: the American title is not good a
gainst Great Britain, because inconsistent with
that of Spain; and the Spanish title is not good
against Great Britain, because inconsistent with
that of the United States. The undersigned had .
experienced something far different from such an
argument in a circle. He had anticipated that
the British plenipotentiary would have attempted
to prove thai Spain had no right to the north
western coast of America; that it was vacant and
unappropriated: and hence, under the law of na
tions, was open to discovery, exploration, and set
tlement by all nations. But no such thing. On
this vital point of his case, ho rests his argument
solely on the declaration made by the undersign
ed.lhat the title of the United Stales to the val
ley of tho Columbia was perfect and complete
before the treaty 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 titla
was asserted to bo 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 Slates, and
not Great Britain, represeut the Spanish title.-
And, further, that the statement from which he
extracts theso declarations was almost exclusive-,
ly devoted to prove, in tho language quoted by
ihe British plenipotentiary himself, (hat 'Spain
had a good title, as against Great Britain, to the
whole of Ihe Oregon territory.' The undersign
ed has never, as he before observed, instituted
any comparison between the American and
the Snanish titles. Holdinir both having per-
I feet right to rely upon both, whether jointly ot

xml | txt