Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 5, Number 50, Indianapolis, Marion County, 4 June 1846 — Page 2

L tU t U t tl int!) lLOttGtC55.

In Scnafr, May 22, 1946. . r Speech of Mr. Benton, t,n the xnotioa made by Mr. Westcott, to postpone the consideration of the hill to extend the laws of the United States over Oresron, to the first Monday i in DerMnler ntt. Ac Mr. Bextox rose, and thus addressed the Senate. Mr. President The bill before the Senate proposes to extend the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Unit ed States over all our territories west of the Rocky mountain, without saying what is the extent and what are the limits of this territory. This is wrong, in my opinion. We ought to define the limits within which our agents are to do such acts as this bill contemplates, otherwise we commit to them the solution of questions which we find to hard for ourselves. This indefinite extension of authority, in a case which requires the utmost precision, forces me to speak, and to give my opinion of the true extent of our territories beyond the Rocky mountains. I have delayed doing this during the whole session, not from any deire to conceal my opinions, (which, in fact, were told to all that asked for them.) but because I thought it the business of negotiation, not of legislation, to settle these boundaries. I waited for negotiation : but negotiation lags while even's go forward ;. and now we are in the process of acting upon measures upon the adoption of which it may no longer be in the power either of negotiation or of legislation to control the events to which they mar give rise. The bill before us is without definition of the territory to be occupied. And why this vagueness in a case requiring the utmost precision 1 Why not define the boundaries of these territories 1 Precisely because we di not know them ! And this presents a case which requires me to wait no longer for negotiation, but to come forward with my own opinions, and to do what I can to prevent the evils of vague and indefinite legislation. My object will be to show, if I can, the true extent and nature of our territorial claims beyond the Rocky mountains, with a view to just and wise decisions ; and, in doing so, I shall endeavor to act upon the great maxim. Ask nothing but what is right submit to nothing that is wrong. It is my ungracious task, in attempting to act upon this maxim, to commence by exposing error at home, nd endeavoring to clear up some great mistakes under which the public mind has labored.It has been assumed for two years, and the assumption has been made the cause of all the Oregon excitement in the country, that we have a dividing line with Russia, made so by the convention of 1324, along the parallel of fifty-four degrees forty minutes, from the sea to the Rocky mountains, up to which our title is good. This is a great mistake. No such line was ever established : and, so far as proposed and discussed, it was proposed and discussed as a northern British, and not as a northern American line. The public treaties will prove there is no such line ; documents will prove that, so far as fifty-four forty, from the sea to the mountains, was ever proposed as a northern boundary for any power, it was proposed by us for the British, and not for ourselves. . To make myself intelligible' in what I shall say on this point, it is necessary to go back to the epoch of the Russian convention of ls'-M, and to recall the recollection of circumstances out of which that convention grew. The circumstances were the?e: In the year 1821 the Emperor Alexander, acting upon a leading idea of Russian policy (in relation to the north Facific ocean) from the time of Feter the Great, undertook to treat that ocean as a close sea, and to exercise municipal authority over a great extent of its shores and waters. In September of that year, the Emperor issued a decree, bottomed upon this pretension, assuming exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over botn shores oi tne norm l acinc ocean, over the high seas in front of each coast, to the extent of one hundred Italian miles, from Behring' Straits down to latitude fifty-one, on the American coast, and to forty-five on the Asiatic ; and denounc ing the penalties of confiscation upon all ships, of whatsoever nation, that should approach the coasts within the interdicted distances. This was a very startling decree. Coming trom a feeble nation, it would have been smiled at ; coming from Russia, it gave nneasiness to all nations. Great Britain and the United States, as having the largest commerce on the north Pacific ocean, and as having large territorial claims on the northwest coast 'of America, were the first to take the alarm and to send remonstrances to St. Petersburg against the formidable ukase. They found themselves suddenly thrown together, and standing side by side in this new and porteutous contest with Russia. They remonstrated in concert, and here the wise and pacific conduct of the Emperor Alexander displayed itself in the most prompt and honorable manner. He immediately suspended the ukase, (which, in fact, had remained without execution,) and invited the United States and Great Britain to unite with Russia in a convention to settle amicably and in a spirit of mutual convenience all the questions between them, and especially their respective territorial claims on the northwest coast of America. This magnanimous proposition was immediately met by the two powers in a corresponding pint; and, the ukase being voluntarily relinquished by the Emperor, a convention was quickly signed by Russia with each power, settling, so far as Russia was concerned with each, all their territorial claims in northwest America. The Emperor Alexander had proposed that it should be a joint convention of the three powers a tripartite convention settling the claims of each and of all at the same time; anil if this wise suggestion had been followed, all the subsequent and all the present difficulties between the United States and Great Britain with respect to this territory would have been entirely avoided. But it was not followed : an act of our own prevented it. After Great Britain had consented, the non-colonization principle the principle of non-colonization in America by any European power was promulgated by our government; and for that reason Great Britain chose to treat separately with each power, and so it was done. Great Britain and the United States treated separately with Russia, and with each other ; and each came to agreements with Russia, but to none among themselves. The agreements with Russia were contained in two conventions, signed nearly at the same time, and nearly in the same words, limiting the territorial claim of Russia to 54 deg. 40 min. confining her to the coast and islands, and leaving the continent out to the Rocky mountains, t be divided between the United States and Great Britain by an agreement between themselves. The Emperor finished up his own business, and quit the concern. In fact, it would seem, from the promptitude, moderation, and fairness with which he adjusted all differences both with the United States and Great Britain, that his only object of issuing the alarming ukase of 1921, was to bring these powers to a settlement, acting upon the homely) but wise n.axim, that short settlements make long friends. These are the circumstances out of which the British and American conventions grew with Russia in the years 1324 and 1S25. They are public treaties, open to all perusal, and eminently worthy of being read. J will read the third article of each the one which applies to boundaries and which will confirm all that I have said. The article in the convention with the United States is in these words : - Art. 3. Ilia moreover agreed, that, hereafter, there hall not be formed, by (he citizens of the United States, or under the authority of the said States, any establish ment nf-on the northwest coast o America, nor in any of tne isianaj anjiceni, io ine norm oi jrjujjour degrees and forty minutes of north latitude ; ind that, in the same manner, there shall none be formed by Russian subjects, r under the authority of Kusia, south of the same parallei " . This i the article which governs the American boundary with Russia, confined by its precise term to the islands and coasts, and having no manner of relation to the continent. The article in the British convention with Russia, governing her boundary, is in the same words, so far as the limit is concerned, and Ot'y more explicit with respect to the continent. Like cur own, it is the third article of the convention, and is in these words : Art. 3. The line of demarcation between the possessions of the bigli contracting parties upon the coast of the santment, and the islands ol America to the northwest, shall be drawn in the manner following, commencing from tli southernmost point of the island Called Prince of Wales island, which noint lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 43 minutes north latitude, and between the 13st and 133 J decree of west longitude, (meridian of Greenwich,) the said line shall ascend to the nort along the channel called Portland Channel, as lar as the point of iha continent where it strikes the 5ttli degree ol north latitude ; from this last mentioned point to the point ol intersection ol the 1 4 1st degree of.west longitude, will prove to.be at. the diatance of more 'than ten manne

nosse - stons and the line or coart which is to belong to Kussia, at above mentioned, shall be formed by a Tin

parallel to the windings or the coast, and which than I never exceed the distance of ten marine league there- , from. And the line of demarcation shall follow the sum mit of the mountain situated parallel to the coast as far a the point of intersection of the 141st degree of wet longitude, (f the same meridian ;) and, finally, from the r v' ........ - 141st degree, in its prolongation as lar as the frozen ocean shall form the limit between the Kussian and Uritish pos sessions on the continent of America to the northwest. These are the proofs, these the conventions which established limits on the northwest coaat of America between the United States and Russia in 1824, and between Great Britain and Russia iu 1825. They are identical in object, and nearly in terms ; tbey grow out of the same difficulties, and terminate in the same way. By each the Russian claim is confined to the coast and the islands; by each the same limit is given both to the United States and Great Britain ; and that limit was fixed at the south end of an island, to the latitude of which (supposed to be in 53 deg , but found to be in fifty-four forty) the Emperor Paul had granted the privileges of trade to the Kussian American Fur Company. It was a limit wholly in the water, not at all on the tand. The American line never touches land ; the British only reaches itby going north through Portland channel to bo deg., and thence to pursue the coast at ten leagues from it northwardly to 61 deg., and thence due north to the Frozen ocean. leaving to the Russians only the projecting part of the continent which approaches Asia and narrows the ocean into the strait which Behring found, and which bears his name. This is the Russian line on the con tinent with Great Britain ; the United States have no continental line either with Russia or with Great Britain. I have shown you the limits established with Russia in lü'Si : 1 have produced tne treaties wnicn es . -uk. . . a tablished them ; and here, also, is a map which illustrates them, and shows everything precisely as I have read it from the treaties. It is the map ol Mr. Greenhow, a clerk in the Dc partment of State, who, so long as he confines him self to the business of copying maps and voyages, does very well ; but when he goes to issuing opinions upon national subjects and setting the world right about the execution or non-execution ola great treaty, as that the line of forty-nine was not established un per the treaty of Utrecht ; when he goes at this work, the Lord deliver us from the humbug. But here is the map, with the lines all right upon it, drawn in the water and along the coast according to the trea ties. First a few dots in the water at the end of Prince of Wales island, in latitude 44 deg. 40 min then a dotted line un north, through the middle of Portland channel, to latitude 5G ; then northwestwardly alon the coast, and ten leagues from it, to 01 deg and then north to the Frozen ocean. No line at all alon" 54 deg. 40 iniii. to the Rocky mountains; and that is right, for the treaties never put one there And here is another map which illustrates error, and shows you a line on paper where there is none on earth, and of which the benate has ordered ten thou sand extra copies to be printed for the instruction of the people. Here it goes, running straight through from the sea to the mountains, caring for nothing in its course cutting lakes in two, dividing neighboring posts from each other, and reckle-s of everything except to follow tmy-tour iony. inai u pursues with undeviating fidelity ; and the engraver has mark ed strong on the map, that no one may overlook it. In all this there is but one fault, and that is, that there is no such thing ! no such line upon earth never was, and never can be, by any principle recog nized at the time that the Russian convention of 1S24 was made. Well, there is no such line ! and that would seem to be enough to quiet the excitement which has been rot up about it ; but there is more to come. I 6et out with saying that, although this fifty-four forty was never established as a northern boundary for the United States, yet it was proposed to be established as a northern boundary, not for us, but for Great Britain : and that proposal was made to Great isntain by our selves. This must sound like a 6trange statement in the ears of the fifty-four forties, but it is no more strange than true; and, after stating the facts, I mean to nrove them. I he plan of the United btates at that time was this : that each of the three powers (Great Britain, Russia, and the United States) having claims on the northwest coast oi America should di vide the country between them, each taking a third In this plan of partition each was to receive a share of the continent from the sea to the Rocky mountains, Russia taking the northern slice, the United States the southern, and Great lintain the centre, with fifty four forty for her northern boundary and forty-nine as her southern. Ihe document trom which 1 now read will say fifty-one ; but that was the first offer; forty-nine was the real one, as I will hereafter show. This was our plan. Ihe moderation of Russia de feated it. That power had no settlements on that part of the continent, and rejected the continenta share which we offered her. She limited herself to the coasts an! islands, where she had settlements and left Great Britain and the United States to share the continent between themselves. But before this wes known we had proposed to her fifty-four forty for the Russian southern boundary, and to Great Britain the same for her northern boundary. I say fifty-four forty ; for, although the word in the proposition was fifty-five, yet it was on the principle which gave fifty I four forty namely, running from the south end of Prince of Wale a island, supposed to be in fifty-five, but found to have a point to it running down to fiftyfour forty. We proposed this to Great Britain. She refused it, saying she would establish her northern boundary with Russia, who was on her north, and not with the United States, who was on her south. This seemed reasonable ; and the United States then, and not until then, relinquished the business of pressing fifty-four forty upon Great Britaiu for her northern boundary. The proof is in the Executive documents. Here it is a despatch from Mr. Rush, our minister in London, to Mr. Adams, Secretary' of State, dated December 19, 1323: . "I at once unfolded to him (Mr. Canning) the proposals of my government, which were: 1. That, aa regarded the country lying between the Stony mountains and the Pacific ocean. Great Britain, the United States, and Russia, should jointly enter into a convention, similar in its nature to ihe third article of the convention of the 20lh October, 1818, now existing between the two formpr powers, by which the whole of that country westward of ihe Stony mountains, and all its waters, would be free and open to the citizens and subjects ol ihe three powers ss long as the joint convention remained in force. This, my government proposed, should be for the term of ten years. 2. That the United States were willing to stipulate to make no settlements north of the 51st di-gree of north latitude on that coast, provided Great Untain stipulated to make none south of 51, or north of 55, and Russia to make none south of 55." Here is the offer, in the most explicit terms, in 1323, to make fifty-five, which was in fact fifty-four forty, the northern boundary of Great Britain ; and here is her answer to that proposition. It is the next paragraph in the same despatch from Mr. Rush to Mr. Adams : "Mr. Canning expressed no opinion on any of these points; but his inquiries and remarks, under that which proposes to confine the British settlements between 51 and 55, were evidently of a nature to indicate strong objections on bis side, though he professed to speak only from first impressions. It is mora proper, I should say, that his objections were directed to our proposal of not letting Great Britain go above 55 north with her settlements; while we allowed Kussia to come down to that line with hers. In treating of this coast, he had supposed that Great Britain had her northern question with Russia, as her southern with the United Stales. He could see a motive (or the United States desiring to stop the settlements of Great Britain southward ; but he had not before known of their desire to stop them northward, and above all, over limits conceded to Russia. It was to this effect that his suggestions went.' This was her answer, refusing to take, in 1823, as a northern boundary, coming south for quality, what is now prescribed to her, at the peril of war, for a southern boundary, with nothing north ! for although the fact happens to be that Russia is not there, bounding us on the north, yet that makes no difference in the philosophy of our fifty-four-fortyites, who believe it to be so, and, on that belief, are ready to fight. Their notion is, that we go jam up to 54 drg.40 nun., and the Russians come jam down to the same, leaving no place for the British lion to put down a paw. al though that paw should be no bigger than the sole of the dove s toot which sought a resting place from Noah's ark. This must seem a little Etrange to British statesmen who do not grow so fast as to leave all knowledge behind them. They remember that Mr. Monroe and his cabinet the President and cabinet who acquired the Spanish title nnder which we now propose to squeeze them out of the continent actually offered thetn six degrees of latitude in that very place ; and they will certainly want reasons for

this so much compression now. where we offered them

so much expansion then. These reasons cannot be given. There is no boundary at 54 deg. 40 min.; and so far as we proposed to make it one, it was for the British, and not for ourselves, and so ends this redoubtable line, up to which all true patriots were to march ! and marching, fight I and fighting die ! if need be ! singing all the while, with Horace " Dulct et decorum est fro pa'ri mori." Sweet and decent it is to die for one's country. And this i the end of that great line ! all gonevanished evaporated into thin air and the place where it was to bo found. Oh ! mountain that was delivered of a mouse, thy name shall henceforth be fifty-four forty ! And thus, Mr. President, I trust I have exploded one of the errors into which the public mind has been led, and which it is necessary to get rid of before we can find the right place for our Ore gon boundaries. 1 proceed to another part of the same family the dogma of the unity and indivisibility of the Oregon title, and its resulting corollary of all or none. It is assumed by the "friends of Oregon " to be all one title all the way from 42 deg up to 54 deg. 40 min. no break in it; and consequently, "ail or none" is the only logical solution which our claim to it can receive. Well, this may be brave and patriotic ; but is it wise and true! And can we, with clear con sciences, and without regard to consequences, pass a law upon that principle, and send our agents there to execute it! These are the questions which present themselves to my mind, and in answering which I wish to keep before my eyes the first half of the great maxim ask for nothing but what is right. I answer, then, that it is not true that our title to what is called all Oregon is not one, but several ; that it consists of parts, and is good for part, and bad for part ; and that nothing just or wise can be determined in relation to it without separating these parts into their proper divisions, and giving to each division the separate consideration and judgment which belongs to it. Thus the title to the Columbia river and its valley was complete ; the claim to Frazer's river and its valley began ; and the claims to the islands and coasts rests upon a different state of facts, and a dif ferent principle of national law, from that which applies to the continent. The title to the Columbia river and its valley rests upon discovery and settlement, and was complete before our acquisition of the Spanish title in 1819. The claim to Frazer's river and its valley, and to the coasts and islands in front of it, began in 1819, and rests upon the discoveries of Spanish navigators ; and of these discoveries, the islands and the continent have very different degrees of evidence to exhibit. I mention these differences of title as facts too well known to require documents to prove them ; and the bare statement of which should be sufficient to explode the dogma of the unity and indivisibility of the Oregon title. It is not "all one title." It is not rood "for all or none." It is not a unity. There are breaks in it; and these breaks are sufficiently large to cover large geographical divisions of the country, and require separate consideration and judg ment. That consideration will be given at the proper place: at present I limit myself to the correction of the error, so widely spread over the public mind, that the Oregon title is all one title, from 42 deg. to 54 deg. 40 min. 1 come to the line of Utrecht, the existence of which is denied upon this floor by Senators whose fate it seems to be to assert the existence of a line that is not, and to deny the existence of one that is A cierK in tne department oi otate nas compiled a volume of voyages and treaties, and, undertaking to set the world right, has denied that commissaries ever met under the treaty of Utrecht and fixed boundaries between the British northern and French Canadian possessions in North America. That denial has been produced and accredited on this floor by a Senator in his place, (Mr. Cass;) and this production of a blun dering book, with this Senatorial endorsement of its assertion, lays me under the necessity of correcting a third error which the fifty-four forties " hug to their bosom, and the correction of which becomes necessary for the vindication of history, the establisment of a political right, and the protection of the Senate from the suspicion of ignorance. I affirm that the line was established ; that 'the commissaries met, and did their work ; and that what they did has been acquiesced in by all the powers interested from the year 1713 down to the present time. This is my affirmation ; and, in support of it, and without repeating anything said heretofore, I shall produce some new proofs, and take some new positions, tne nrsi oi which is, mat this line was enforced by us (without any thing else but the treaty of Utrecht to 6tand upon) for fifteen years from 1603 to 1818 as the northern boundary line of Louisiana and submitted to as such by the British government ; and British traders thereby kept out of our territories west of the Mississippi, while our own treaties let them into our territories on this side of the river. In a word, I will show that this treaty of Utrecht saved us from a calamity for fifteen years, in our new ter ritory of Louisiana, acquired from France, which the treaty of peace of 17S3, and Mr. Jay's treaty of 1734, exposed us to in our old territories of the United States, conquered for us by our fathers in the war of the revolution, this is. my first position, and this is the case which sustains it. In the year 1803 the United States acquired Loui siana, and with it became a party to all the treaties which concerned the boundaries of that province The treaty of Utrecht was one of these, and the par allel of forty-nine one of the lines established by it, and governing its northern boundary. We soon had occasion for the protection of that boundary. Span ish connivance and weakness had suliered British traders to invade the whole northern flank of Louisi ana, from the lake of the Woods to the head-waters of the Missouri river ; and on our acquisition of that province we found these traders in the actual possession cf the Indian trade throughout all that extensive region. These traders were doing immense mischief amonr our Indians on this side of the Mississippi. by poisoning their minds and preparing them for war against the United States. The treaty of peace and Mr. Jay's treaty, under the delusive idea of recipro city, gave tnem mis privilege ot trade in the old territories of the United States. Experience of its evil efff cts had taught a lesson of wisdom ; and, while vainly striving to get rid of the treaty stipulations which admitted these Indians on this side of the Mississippi river, the treaty of Utrecht was eagerly seized upon to expel them from the other. Mr. Greenhow's compilation was not published at that time, and Mr. Jefferson and his cabinet, proceeding according to the lights of their little farthing candles, in the absence cl that vast luminary, just took the line of forty-nine as the northern boundary of Louisiana, and drove all the British traders to the north of that line. These traders complained loudly and appealed to their government ; but the British ministry, just as much in the dark as Mr. Jefferson and his cabinet, refused to take official notice of the complaint, only presented it unofficially to the United States Ministers in London, and asked as a favor, not as a right, the privilege -of trading in Louisiana south of 49 doc. i Of course this favor was not granted ; and thus Brit ish traders were excluded from Louisiana by the treaty of Utrecht, while admitted into the old northwest territory of the Union by virtue of our treaties with Great Britain. The treaty of Utrecht did for us what our own treaties did not. And this was the case from the year 1SC3, the year of the acquisition of Louisiana, until 1919, the year of concluding the convention with Great Britain which adopted the line of Utrecht as far as the Rocky mountains. Then, for the first time, the northern line of Louisiana was agreed upon in a treaty between the United States and Great Britain. That convention was an act of supererogation, so far as it followed the line of Utrecht an act of deep injury so far as it stopped it. The line of 49 deg. was just as well established and just as well respected and observed from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky mountains before that convention as after it. Nay, more; it was the understood line between those mountains to the sea, and would itself have settled the Oregon question, and settled it wisely and beneficially, if it had only been permitted to remain unmutilated. This is the case. Now for the proofs. I read extracts from an unofficial communication made by the British ministers, in 1 800, to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, our ministers at that time in London, and by them communicated to our own gov ernment. It is the substance of the complaints of the Canada merchants against the Uovernor of Louisiana for excluding them from that province, and their application to the British government to be restored to it. The whole paper is in our State papers of that period, and may there be read at length bj anyone who desires it.

M Extra eflcial communication vritk rtg&rd to tkt Car.adi

trad." December 31, isut. M A memorial bas been presented to Lord Holland and Lord AakUnd, on the part ef the Canada merchants, setting forth a variety of injuries which they complain of having sustained from the government and servsnts of the United States, and praying that their complaints may be attended to, and tedress obtained for them io the discussions which

are at present pending between the American and BiitLh ioQ of Washington his quarter-master general duC0" SV tajS. brought forward in their memorial m,r be ! ring the war of the revolutionhis Postmaster Gener-

reducedtothe three following beads: 1. Their exclusion 'from Louisiana. "By the third article or the treaty or 173t.it h agreed that it shall at all times be free to his Majesty's subjects and the citizens of the United States fieely to pass by land or inland navigation into the respective territoiies and countries of the two paitics on the contineot of Ameiica, and to navigate all the lakes and waters thereof, and fieely to carry on trade with each other." " Bat notwithstanding this express stipulation, which secure' to bis majesty's subjects, without limitation or reser vation, the luhtof commercial inteicourse by land or inland navigaiioo with all the territories of the Lotted States on the continent of America, the Governor cf Louisiana has thovght proper to exclude tkem from the commerce of that extensive province, un!es they atjure their allegiance to his msjtsty, and take an oath of allegiance to the United Slstet ; and the same Governor bas also taken it upon bim to prohibit the introduction of any goods or meiehandise which are not the property of citizens of the United States. " This aibitrary pioceeding, ceudes being a direct viola tion of the treaty of 1794. is highly detrimental to the pri vate interest of the Canada rrercbants, for it excludes thera from a country where they have been carrying on trade tue cessfully for many years without interruption from the Fpaniard, having latterly pushed their commercial posts even to the banks of the Missouri, and augmented the sale ef their goods in Louisiana to the amount of about forty or fifty thousand pounds annually. This is the complaint exclusion from Louisiana by the United States Governor of that province. We took possession of Upper Louisiana in March, 1904; the complaint was made in London in 1SCG ; consequently the exclusion was enforced very soon after we took possession. The question now is, upon what authority did the Governor act in making this exclusion, and to what line did be extend it 1 Doubtless by order of his own government ; but it is good to be certain; and in the case of Mr. Greenhow s over shadowing authority ; backed as it is by the Senator from Michigan, it becomes necessary to prove everything, even that a Governor of upper Louisiana had the authority-of his government for the boundaries of his province, r ortunately tne first Governor of upper Louisiana was a man of letters as well as of the sword, and employed his leisure hours in drawing up a history of the country which he was sent to govern. It was Major Amos Stoddard, who afterwards lost his life at Fort Meigs, during the late war with Great Britain. In his useful work, modestly called "Sketches of Louisiana, he thus speaks of the northern bound' ary of his province : The commerce of Ciozi.by the terms of Ihe patent, ex tended to the utmost limit of Louisiana in that quaiter, which by the 'treaty of Utrecht in 1713, was fixed at the 43ih degree." This is Major Stoddard's account of this northern boundary, and of the line from which and by which he excluded Jintisti traders trom Louisiana, lie did it by virtue of the line of Utrecht ; and no British Minister in that day did or would deny its existence, or impugn its validity. Lords Holland and Aukland, to whom the complaint of the Canadian merchants was mad refused to present it officially to our ministers. They do not, in fact, appear to have spoken a word on the subject, or done any thing more than present their memorial to our ministers. Certain it is, the complaint remained without redress. But the efforts of the British fur-traders did not stop at this repulse. The next year the Earl of Selkirk, head cf the Hudson Bay Company, went to London to renew the complaints of the fur-traders in a more formal manner, and to claim their restoration to the privileges of trade within the limits of Loui siana. That gentleman, as head of the Hudson Bay Company as founder of the colony on Lake Wiuipee as the person most injured by the exclusion of British traders from Louisiana oujht to know somethin? about his own rights and wrongs : and in bringing these before the British ministry fur redress, ought to be supposed to state his case as strongly as truth and justice would allow. He does so ; but not strongly enough to deny the fact of the line of 49 deg, under tne treaty vi uirecni. inai line was doing him all the mischief: the short remedy was to deny its existence, u it coum De uenicti. un the contrary, he admits the fact of former existence, and only argues against present existence, and present appli cability. His argument is, first, that the treaty of Utrecht was not revived by the treaty of Amiens, of IcOl ; and, therefore, that it was abrogated by war ; and, secondly, that the long occupation of the St. Feter's river, and of the Missouri above the Mandan villages, without objection from the Spaniards, was an admission of their right to trade in Louisiana, and should be conclusive upon the United States. In a memorial to Lord Holland, in 1807, he presents these views at much length, and sustains thera by arguments, of which these are specimens : Understanding that you are at present engaged in settling with the Ameiican plenlpotentiaiies the boundaries between the province of Louisiana and the Biitish American domioions, I beg leave to call your attention to some suggestions. To the upper pait of Missouri Biitain bas a preferable claim. About latitude 47 the Biitish trader, coming in from the Hudson Bay territories, maintained a traffic with the Mandan Indians. These tiadeis were the Gr-t Europeans who obtained soy knowledge of the sources of the Missouii, and they had laid down the course of that liver from the Mandaos up to Ihe Rocky mountaios, with great minutenes, many years befoie the journey of Messis. Lewis and Clatke. The claim of Gieat Biitain to the upper Missouii country is equally valid, and tests on the same ground as her claim to Nootka sound, and the country west of the Rocky Mountains on the ocean. Theie are abundance of grounds for denying that there are any rights in the Ameiican government to found its claims on Ihe stipulauons of the tieatr of Utiecbt The stipulations of the treaty of Utrecht, as to the limits of the Hudson Bay territories, do not bear at all upon the question. The limits fixed bv that treaty were lor l anada, not Louisiana Allow me only briefly to observe that the treaty of Utrecht, not having Deen renewea at ine peace oi Amiens, would not have been available even to Fiance, if she had remained at peace with us and io possession of Louisiana." Thus argues the Earl of Selkirk, admiting the fact of boundaries fixed under the treaty of Utrecht, and only arguing against the present existence and appli cability of these boundaries. Lord Holland adopted none of these views ; he presented the paper, without comment, to the American ministers who, in sending it home to their government, characterized it as an "idle paper " and took no further notice of it. It was, in fact, an idle paper. But not quite idle enough, in any sense of the word, to deny the work of the commissaries under the treaty of Utrecht. But to go on with the proofs. In the year 1805, being the second year after the acquisition ot Louisiana, fresident Jelterson sent ministers to Madrid, Messrs. James Monroe and Charles Tinkney, to adjust the eastern and south-western boundaries with her; and, in doing so, the principles which had governed the settlement of the north ern boundary of the same province became a proper illustration oi ineir ideas, iney quoted these prin ciples, and gave the line of Utrecht as the example; and this to Don Pedro Cevallos, one of the most accomplished statesmen in Europe. They say to him: ' It is believed that this principle has been admitted and acted on invauably mice the discovery of Ameiica, in re spect to their possessions theie, by all ihe Luropeao powers It is particularly illustrated by the stipulations of their roost important tieaties concerning those possessions, and the patties under them, vizt the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, and that of Paris iu 1763. In conformity with the tenth ai tide of the fir-t mentioned treaty, the boundary between Canada and Louiianna on tne one side, and the Hudson Rav and Noithwestern Companies od the other, was established by commissaiies, by a line to commence at cape or promontory on the ocean, in 5S 31' north latitude to run thence, louthwfestwirdly, to latitude 49 noith from the equator; and along that line indefinitely westward. Since that time, 00 attempt has been made to extend the limits of Louisiana or Canada to the north of that line, or of those companies to thesWAoi it, by purchase, cpnquest, or grants fiora the Indians.' This is what Messrs. Monroe and Charles Tinkney said to Don Pedro Cevallos a miuister who must be supposed to be as well acquainted with the treaties which settled the boundaries of the late Spanish province of Louisiana as we are with the treaties which settled the boundaries of the United States. The line of Utrecht, and in the very words which carry it from the Lake of the Woods to the Facific ocean, and which confine the British to the north, and the French and Soanish to the south of that line, are quoted to Mr. Cevallos as a fact which he and all the world knew. He received it as such; and thus Spanish authority comes in aid of British, French and American, to vindicate our rights and the truth of history. Mr. President, when a man is struggling in a just cause, be generally gets help, and often from unforeseen and unexpected quarters. So it has happened with me in this affair of the Utrecht treaty. A (Treat many hands have hastened to bear evidence of the truth in this case ; and, at the head of these opportune

testimonies, I place the letter of a gentleman who,

besides bis own great authority, gives a reference to another, who, from his long political position in our country, the powers of his mind, and the habits of hia life, happens to be, of all living men, the one who can shed most light upon the subject. I speak of Colonel Timothy Pickering the friend and compan ,al, becretary ot v ar, and secretary oi oiaie, uunng his presidency a memocr ot mis oooy ai me ume ine treaty was mined wlacn maae us a party io lueireaiy of Utrecht and always a man to consider and to understand what he was about. In fact, Washington wanted no other sort of a man about him. The writer of the letter, (Timothy Pitkin, author of the work on statistics,) on reading some account of the talk here about the treaty of Utrecht, and seeing what lack of information was in the American Senate, wrote a letter to a member of this body, fMr. Wzbstek,! to give him ! bis memoranda of that treaty some forty years ago. ! This letter is an invaluable testimony of the events to which it relates; it combines the testimony of two : eminent men ; and I send it to the secretary s table to be read. It is dated L tica, New i ork, April 9th, 1846: "I perceive by the debates io the Senate on the Oregon qnestioo, that, in a decision of this important subject, no little stress is laid by aome of its membeis on the line settled between France and England, under the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, and that by othera it is contended that no evidence actually exists that such a settlement was made under that treaty. I was somewhat ' surprised that General Cass- should bave ventuied, in a public speech, to have placed himself amorg the latter upon the statements of Mr. Greenhow, a clerk in the department of State. I have for a long time considered that this line was adjusted by commissaries appointed under that treity ; and in leading the speeches of Messrs. Cass and Benton, and your own significant questions on the subject, I thought proper to examine my documents and mem orandums for some proof of the opinion I bad thus foiraed. On such examination I found the following extract on this subject from Mr. Hutchins's Historical Narrative and Topographical Description of Louisiana and West Florida, printed at Philadelphia iu 17S4. M Alter stating the grant to Crozet, of Louisiana, Hutchini, who was then, I believe, geographer to the United States, proceeds to say i ' As to Canada or New France, the French lUUIfc nuuiu OV4II.CI Utllil 11 UU ! UU1CK UUIU1CIU VUUUUary than the pole. The avidity of Gieat Britain was equal, I but France, having been unfortunate in the war of 1710, the ! northern boundary of Canada was fixed by the treaty of, Ulrecht io 1713. It assigns New Britain and Hudson's Bay or the north of Canadx, to Great B.itain , and commissioners afterwards, on both sides, ascertained thelimitsby an imaginary line running froma cape ot promontory in ew Britain, I u iik mi.uiiL uvc.u, iu ui i j uc(icc miiijr luiuuica uumi latitude; then southwest to the Lake Migaing, or Mistas- ' sin; from thence fuither southwest direct to the latitude of i forty-nine degrees. All the lands to the north of the imaginary line being assigned to Great Britain, and all south- ! ward ot that line, to as far as the river St. Lawrence, to the : French. "These were at that time he adds, 'the true limits of Louisiana and Canada, Cmzet's Grant not subsisting long after the death of Louis XIV.' "The above extract is taken from a long communication made to Mr. Jefferson, by Colonel Pickering, on the 18th of J January, ISU4, when the treaty or Mr. Kirg, od of boundaries, was under consideration ; and, of course, after our purtht.m f T mi! jinn t V. t . . I

though telative to King's tieaty some difference of opinion ' ledffe lne kindness ot 1 r. rximund j . r orstall, oi isew existed between Jefferson and Tickering. I have been una- j Orleans, a man of letters, and who sends me a referble, in this place, to have access to this work of Hutchins ; ence to Tostlethwait's Commercial Dictionary, which, it was, no doubt well known to Mr. Jefferson. I in fac, l3 the dictionary of Savary, inspector general ..ul.r.C JÄS, ! f French m.nufae.Ure. .nd in U u of from bis declarations made to me and others, on the 23d of t L""13 XV- &ni wose work was done into English, January, 1806, he then fully believed this lice to bave been : with improvements, by Mr. Malachi Postlethwait, thus settled, in pursuance of the treaty of Utiecht. I whose name it bears with English readers. This dic- " At that time conversing with me and others, at a din- ! tionary of Savary contains in the body of the work, ner party, on the Tavorite subject of Lewis & Clark's exredi-I .i j e .i tt. i . i- u .i tinn to ihe Pacific, he wi.rid f .rrorrf.r . 1 J J I the description of the Utrecht line as shown on the

" v. uirtuuic, mririuic. ii u correct, dum made at th timeMhathv th iriv nr iT,..,k ; 1713, between the English and french, the line between " -. ... w . - w ... . v II vvilk, iu Louisiana and the English country was settled in latitude 49 i and this was the reason why, in our treaty with the English, in 17S3, our northern boundary was placed at the Lake of the Wood", which was in latitude 49V Not having seen Hutchina mentioned, or referred to in this debate, I have been induced to send you this extract from him, and also my above memorandum, to bring the same to your notice and recollection, ( vol tat quant am valere potet."J

This is the letter of Mr. Pitkin, with the extract : his majesty's commissaries for treating with commisfrom Mr. Pickering. It is not the recollection of an saries on the part of France for settling the trade beold man, but the written-down account cf what he t ween Great Britain and France. The same entry saw and knew forty years ago, and written down at occurs at the same time with respect to James Mur-

the time he saw it and knew it. It is full and com - plete to the point in question. The reference to Hutch ins's historical narrative, and topographical description of Louisiana, is correct. The work is not in our library, but several friends have sent me copies of it from different parts of the United States, and, on comparison, I find Mr. Pickering's extract to be correct to a letter. The reference of Mr. Fitkin to what passed, in his presence, at Mr. Jefferson's table, in 1S03, in relation to the Lake of the Woods, recalls a fact which ought to be taught in the schools, to the little girls, in their tiny geographies, instead of being disputed by bearded men in the American Senate. That lake, for an hundred and thirty years, has been a landmark among nations; for more than sixty ypars from the date of our national existence it bas been a prominent mark in our national boundaries. The treaty of Utrecht made it so ! and he that does not know this great historical incident may find it out by tasting the intellectual crumb which fell from Mr. Jefferson's table in 181X5, and which Mr. Pitkin has preserved for a feast this day in the American Senate. Mr. Jefferson's table was one at which something else besides the body was fed. I was never at it but once, and then I sat there five hours ; not for the Burgundy, which was, in fact what a certain American minister said of the king of Portugal's dinner " excellent," but for the conversation, which was divine. And now I will say that I saw Mr. Pickering once, and under circumstances to remember him also. It was at the extra session of Congress, in 1813 he a member of the House of Representatives, I a looker-ou from the hot and suffocating gallery, better paid for my sufferance than those who are listening to me now. I saw an aged man, always in his seat, always attentive, always respectful. The decorum of his conduct 6truck tne; I inquired his name; it turned out to be one who had been formed in the school of Washington, of whom I knew but little up to that time but through the medium of party watchwords, and of whom I then said, that, if events should ever make me a member of Congress, I should love to imitate the decorum. The line of Utrecht is termed by Mr. Pickering, an imaginary " line. That is correct. It was never run, nor intended to be run, nor possible to be run. The treaty required it to be "determined;" and it was determined by astronomical points and lines and by geographical features the high lands parting two of systems of waters those of Hudson's Bay and those the Canadian lakes. . And here I will 6ay there were two sets of boundaries to be established under this same treaty of Utrecht: one on the north of Canada, which wis done as stated with the year limited ; the othenon the south of Canada, between Acadia and the British colonies on the Atlantic, for which no time was limited, and which was never done. Confounding these two sets of boundaries, one of which was determined and the other not, may have led some minds into error those minds which cannot apply words to things. Mr. Pitkin, in this letter, speaks of a long communication made by Colonel Pickering on the 18th of January, 1S04, to Mr. Jefferson, when the treaty of Mr. King was under consideration, and after the purchase of Louisiana. Without doubt that was the identical paper transmitted by Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe, with his official despatch to that minister of February 14th, 1804, as a paper staling the authority on ichich the decision of the commissioners under the treaty of Utrecht rests, and the reasoning opposed to the construction making the 49lh degree of latitude the northern boundary of Lousiana." I mentioned that paper once before, when it was pretty well cried down by the senator from Michigan, Mr Cass. I mention it now again, under better auspices, and with hopes of better results. The author is found, and found where he ought to be, among those who feared the effect of rejecting the fifth article of Mr. Rufus King's treaty of 1803. That treaty settled our whole northern boundary with Great Britain, from Passamaquoddy bay to the Lake of the WckhIs, and to the head of the Mississippi; the 5th article of it brought the line from the lake by the shortest course to the Mississippi ; it closed up the long standing controversy about the course of that line. Now, it happened that the treaty for the purchase of Louisiana was negotiated in Paris about the same time that Mr. King's treaty was negotiated in London, and without his knowledge. The two treaties arrived in the United States together went to the Senate together, with a strong recommendation from Mr. Jefferson to reject the fifth article of Mr. King's treaty, because the acquisition of Louisiana gave us a new line from the Lake of the Woods which would run clear north of the head of the Mississippi, preventing the British from getting to the river, and thereby rendering nugatory

the treaty stipulations of 17S3 and 1791 which gave them a right to its navigation. The maintenance of this new line, which was not only to protect the Mississippi river, but all Louisiana, from British ingression, was a primary object of Mr. Jefferson ; and for that purpose the rejection of the fifth article of Mr. King's treaty became indispensable. The New England senators dreaded the loss of the whole treaty, if the fifth article was expunged: cine of them voted against the striking out; and it was while this treaty was under consideration in the Senate that Mr. rickering, one of the nine, communicated this paper to Mr. Jefferson, not at all denying the 49lh parallel as the line of Utrecht, but arguing against the construction which would now make that line the

northern boundary of Louisiana. The tenor of his argument is not given; possibly the Earl of Selkirk fell upon seme parts of it in his memorial to Lord Holland, when he supposed it to be abrogated by war, and superseded by the connivance of the Spaniards in permitting the British to occupy the whole left flank of Louisiana as low down in places as 45 deg. Mr. Jef ferson adhered to his new line. The fifth article was struck out. The whole treaty was risked and lost, and it was forty years afterwards, and we all know with what angry discussions, with wl:at dangers of war, with what expense of money in calling out troops, this long-contested boundary was at la6t established. All this was risked, all this was encountered, to save the line of Utrecht ! Yet we now find that line denied, and all the organs, great and small, blowing away with might and main to swell the loud notes of denial, and to drown the voice which speaks up for the truth. Several copies of Hutchins's geographical work have been sent to me, all containing the words transcribed by Mr. Pickering. Other works also have been sent me. I have more material on hand than I can ose, and must limit myself to a brief selection. Among these books 6ent me is one of special authority the geographical work of Thomas Jeffreys, Esq., geographer to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, printed at the corner of St. Martin's lane, near Charing Cross, London, A. D. 1753. This royal geographer, who would hardly curtail the fair proportions of the dominions to whose heir apparent (afterwards vfv , J. 1 1U , "curgc W uulCMl"S " uiuo f of the line which parts the British Hudson Bay and the French Canadian possessions: Beginning at Daviä'i inlet, on Ihe east coast of Labrador or New Drilmia in the latitude of about 66 degrees, and dllwinj. it wiln , curre trough the Lake Abitibis, down to lhe 49th de,ree of latitude: from thence to be continued to be northwest ocean, as it was settled by commissioners vo der the treaty of Utrecht." Jlr. Jeffreys adds to this description of the line of Utrecht, remarks upon the same line as laid down by D'Anville. the royal French geographer, points out what he deems erroneous in it, and takes credit to himself in making it more favorable to the French than the French had made it to themselves. The latitude of 49 to the western ocean is his limit of the British possessions. I have said that more material has been furnished to me than I can use. Among these I must acknowt . . ... . . .- ... i maps, and thus cives authority for what appears a w w there. Another contribution, which I have pleasure to acknowledge, is from a gentleman of Baltimore, formerly of the House of Representatives, (Mr. Kennedy,) who gives me an extract from the Journal of the British House of Commons, March 5th 1714, directing a writ to be issued for electing a burgess in the place of Frederick Heme, Esq., who since his elec tion, hath accepted, as the journal says, the office of one i ray, Esq., and Sir Joseph Martyn. The tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht applies to limits in Tsorth America, the eleventh and fifteenth to commerce; and these commissaries were appointed under some or all of these articles. Others might have been appointed by the king, and not mentioned in the journals, as not being members of Parliament whose vacated seats were to be filled. AH three of the articles of the treaty were equally obligatory for the appointment of commissaries; and here is proof that three were appointed under the commercial articles. One more piece of testimony and I have done. And, first, a little statement to introduce it. We all know that in one the debates which took place iu the British House of Commons on the Ash burton treaty, and after that treaty was ratified and past recall, mention was made of a certain map called tbe king's map, which had belonged to the late king, (George III,) and hung in his library during his lifetime, and afterwards in the foreign office, from which said office the said map silently disappeared about the time of the Ashburton treaty, and w hich certainly was not before our Senate at the time of the ratification of that treaty. Well, the member who mentioned it in Parliament said there was a strong red line upon it, about the tenth of an inch wide, running all along where the Americans said the true boundary was, with these words written along it in four places in King George's handwriting: "This is Oswald's line,"' meaning, it is the line of the treaty of peace negotiated by Mr. Oswald on the British side, and therefore called Oswald's line. Now, what I have to say is this : That whenever this royal map 6hall emerge from its retreat and resume its place in the foreign office, on it will be found another 6trong red line, about the tenth of an inch wide, in another place, with these words written on it : Boundaries between the British and French possessions in America "as fixed by the treaty of Ulrecht." To complete this last and crowning piece of testimony, I have to add that the evidence of it is in the department of State, as is nearly the whole of evidence which I have used in crushing this pie-pov dre insurrection 44 this puddltlane rebellion " against the truth and majesty of history, which, beginning with a clerk in the Department of State, spread to all the organs, big and little: then reached the Senate of the United States, held divided empire in this chamber for four months, and now dies the death of the ridiculous. I have now got to the end of the errors which I propose to correct at the present time. I have consumed the day in getting ready to speak in clearing away the rubbish which had been piled up in my path. On another day, if the Senate pleases, I will go to work on the Oregon question, and endeavor to show how far we shall be right, and how far we may be wrong, in exercising the jurisdiction and sovereignty which tiiis bill proposes (which is not a copy of the British act, but goes far beyond it) over an undefined extent of territory, to which we know there are conflicting claims. Light upon this point, at this time, may be of service to our country ; and I mean to discharge my duty to her, regardless of all consequences to myself. Mr. Haywood moved that the further consideration of the bill be postponed till Monday next; which motion was agreed to. Geeat Flood ir the Allegheny. Destructionof Property and Loss of Life. Owing to the late heavy rains above, there was a rise in the Allegheny river yesterday afternoon of between five and six feeL The destruction of property is said to have been greater than has ever before been experienced on this river. A large number of rafts broke loose from their moorings and were swept away. The amount of loss sustained, we have not as yet, been able to learn. During the afternoon a great number of persons were engaged in catching drift, and we regret to 6tate that three lads, thus employed, whose names we could not learn, were drowned above the upper bridge. Pittsburgh Post. The last Legislature of New York left it to a vote of the people, whether the retail of spirituous liquors should be licensed or not ! The question was, license or no license. The result shows that a great majority of the towns have voted no license, and that by most unprecedented majorities ! The current of popular feeling seems to bave very much changed of late. The Cincinnati Gazette positively denies that Mr. Clay has written a letter favorable to the nomination of General Scott for the presidency by the whigs. The position of the Gazette, and the fact that it enjoys the fullest confidence of its party, make its observations in this connection of the first importance. -