Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 5, Number 51, Indianapolis, Marion County, 11 June 1846 — Page 2

Stucntij-jJuntl) Congress. i Senate, Mmdny, June 1, 1S19. Speech or Wen. Cas, On the till to provide for the protection of American settlers in the Oregou territorj. On motion of Mr. Hanneg a, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being the bill to protect the rights of American citizeu in the Oregon territory, the pending question being, to refer the bill to the committee ou the judiciary with instructions. Mr. Cam addressed the Senate a follows i I did not iutend, Mr. President, ngiin to trouble the Senate upon any question connected with our claim to Orczon. or with the prtcr course of policy

to adopt in support of it. -t And I avowed to those frieuds with wh im I am in the habit of free consultation, this determination to remain silent. Delict inj I had occupied my full hare of the attention of the Senate, and of the public, so far as the public can be interested in any views of mine. I am now, however, compelled to break the silcnceT had imposed upon myself, and again to vindicate the position in which I am placed. The houorablc Sc-natur from M.ssouri has referred to me by name,' and if I would not 6eem to abandon the ground I have occupied I must defend it from this new and vigorous assault. I shall, however, be brief; avoiding recapitulation, and confining myself almost exclusively to two of the propositions submitted by lie Senator. . One entirely new ; the other presented in the previous discussion, but again brought forward, though with new facta and illustrations, and extending to more remote region. The former is the assertion of the non-cx.3.cnce of the line of fifty-four forty, and the latter the assertion that the parallel of forty-nine dg. was established as a boundary between Use British and French possessions, by commissaries under the treaty of Utrecht, and that it ran to the northwest coast. The Senator commenced by the work of demolition pulling down before he built up. Clearing off the rubbish occasioned by the labor of other.', to procure i fair site, preparatory to the task of re-cdilication. And how has this system of destruction and of substitution been effected ! The process and the result I propose to examine In the first place, be announces that till now we have all been in error, including the President, and Congress, and the country, and that no such line as the parallel of fifty-four forty has ever been established as the northern boundary of Oregon, and he considers that this correction of a great popular error is enough to quiet the excitement w hich has been got up about it. I fear, sir, that the honorable Senator deceives himself, and that this excitement, as he terms it, or this conviction of the extent and justice of our "title, as I term it, is far beyond the reach of any new reading of old documents, however gigantic may be the intellect which puts itself to the task of giving out and vindicating a new system of national rights or any new evidence m support of them. 1 lie hon orable Senator is as competent to the performance of this labor as any one among us. But, sir, when a treat nucstion like this has occupied the attention of an enlightened country and government in some mode or other for alm6t half a century, and more recently has called into its service the heads and tongues, and pens of hosts of able men in public and in private life the discovery and promulgation of new views, giving an unexpected direction to a great controversy, is not indeed impossible, but it is so far improbable that he who claims the title and the reward of a discoverer must expect to have his pretensions investigated with much care and admitted with much caution. The honorable Senator, in the exultation of anticipated success, speaks of the philosophy of Ike fifty-four Sen alors, and says "there is an end of that question ! All pone vanished evaporated into the air and the place where it was not to be found." And then comes the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse. It is a good old fable, intended to convey a useful truth. Lut it is somewhat dangerous in its applies tion, especially when he who appeals to it, in the very act of decrying the labor of another, announces ex cathedra the value of his own. Tulling down to build op! annihilating one line to establish another ! There is such a thing as putting the saddle on the wrong borse. The honorable Senator says "there is no boundary at fifty-four forty. I quote his very words, and join issue with him. If there is not, I shall then confess, that I for one am liable to all the sneers he casts upon the fifty-four-forties, as he calls them, and upon their cause ; while if there is, I shall leave the honorable Senator the position he has assumed. And whence this declared popular error, respecting the boundary line of fifty-four forty 1 It originates, says the Senator, in the treaty with Russia, concluded in 1S24, the third article of which he quotes "AaT. 3. It is moreover agreed, that, hereafter, there bill not be formed, by the citizens of the United States, or oder tha authority of the said States, anr establishment upon the northwest coatt of America, nor in any of the t'alandt adjacent, to the north ef fißy-four degrees forty minvf north latitude; and that, in thttame manner, there shall be none formed by Russian ut jrctn, or under the authority of Russia, touth of the same parallel." Now, sir, this, one would think, is clear enough. Here is fifty-four forty established as a bouudary as plainly as words and types can establish it, beyond which the claim of the United States cannot extend. It is the northern limit, across which we cannot go. We may march up to it ; with that Russia his no concern ; but the moment we attempt to put foot over it, we shall be met by this convention and our plighted faith not to pass it. If this is not a boundary to us, I am sure I do not know what boundary we can have, there or anywhere else. It is a point not to be discussed. It gains no strength by argument. No clearness by illustration. It is a boundary line ; and when that is said, all is said. I am well aware it is line in posse, and not in esse, established upon paper, and not actually marked upon the surface of the globe. But bo if most of the boundary between us and the British possessions, and between us and Mexico. And the Senator himself, in his argument, where he undertakes to prove the establishment of the parallel of forty-nine as the line fixed under the treaty of Utrecht, expressly says it was established but not run. It was nevertheless a great line of demarcation, whose eject are said to be felt upon the rights, of nations at this day. All boundaries between countries, which are not natural lines or marks, must be fir3t fixed by diplomatic arrangement, and when this is done, their establishment upon earth becomes a question of fact, and is usually committed to scientific persons who give practical ciTect to the la bors of the diplomatists. If therefore the parallel of ntty-lour forty should remain a paper instead of a visible boundary till doomsday, it would nevertheless be a barrier beyond which we could not pass, and might at any time be ascertained by astronomical observations, and" marked upon the ground, should such a measure become necessary to.assert the jurisdiction of the one party, or to arrest that of the other. After quoting the third article of our treaty with Russia, the honorable Senator proceed to quote the third article of the treaty between Russia and England, regulating their mutual pretensions to the same region. And he controls the construction of one treaty, by what legitimate process I know not, by the provisions of the other. He 63ys, and strangely too, that "they are identical in objects, and nearly in terms." Ilevti-al in objects! Why, sir, one is a treaty between the United States and Russia for the adjustment of their mutual pretensions, and the other is a treaty between England and Russia for the adjustment of their pretensions. Until it is shown that American pretensions and English pretensions are the same, the identity of the objects of these treaties will be among the discoveries that are to be yet made. "Nearly identical in terms " This, sir, is almost an equal mistake. To show it, I will quote this third article of the Anglo Russian treaty : "AST. 3. The line of demarcation between the possession! vt the high contracting parties upon the coast of the continent and tti ilaod of America, to the noribwett, shall be drawn in the manner following commencing from tha southernmost point of the island, called Piince of Wales' inland, which point he iu the parallel uf 54 degrees 4'J minutes, and th 133J degree of west longitude, (meridian of Greenwich,) tb sail line shall ascend to the north, along lbs channel called Portland channel as far as Ihe point of (he continent, where it strikes the 5-Sih degrea of north latitude, from" this last meat. ned point to the point of iotenccti n of the Hist degic of west lougitude, will prove to be at the distance? of mora than ten marine leagues frm the. ocean ; the limit between the Bi itish possession and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia as above mentioned, shall be f.-fmed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of tea marine lea jtjfi therefrom. And the lint of demarcation shall fol- . low the omroit of. the moontaina rituted parallel to the coast, as far at the paint of intersection of the 14 1st decree of we it luBitode, (of the fame merklian,) and finally from the t4 point af Uutsecüju tha sail meridian line of the

lii.i An the rr .loocatios. as fir as the Froren ocean.

shall form the limit between the Russian and Urituh possessions on tht CjoUncnt of Amerisa to the nuitawest. Now, sir, I do not quote this article because it his the slightest bearing upon our claim, or ought to have upon investigation of its extent, but to show the mistake into which the honorable Senator has been led, when he considers these two articles as identical, either ia their objecta or in their terms. They are almost as d.ssimilar in the one as in the other. The eGort of Russia was the same. It was to procure a recognition from the only parties whose claims interfered with hers, of her title to that part of the country. This she effected by a stipulation with the United States that they would assert no pretensions north of fifty-four forty generally,-and astipulation with j England that she would assert none north of the same line, and west of ten marine leagues from the coast. On her part, Russia relinquished all her pretensions south of fifty-four forty, but without touching the conflicting claim of the other, parties, leaving them to adjust these in their own manner as they would or as they could ; and both England and the United States are as free this day to assert each its own title, and to oppose that of its adversary, as they were before the execution of these conventions witu i.ussia. I therefore remove from this discussion all the hon-1 oraLle Senator has said respecting the objects, the terms, and the effect of this treaty between England and Russia. We were no parties to it. It was formed a year after our treaty with the latter power, and we had just as much right to regulato the descent of the crowns of Russia and England as those powers had to regulate our right to the Oregon territory. In fact, they assumed no such monstrous pretensions. And I must confes my surprise that their arrangements are introduced here as binding or controlling our territorial claims. And yet these two articles are placed by the honorable Senator in juxta-position, as though they were parts of the same instrument, ana his deductions respecting ottr rights seem to be drawn from one or the other side indiscriminately : so much 80, that the Senator actually says, ,4I have shown you the limits as established with Kussia in Ii4 ; 1 have produced the treaties Qnot treaty) which establishes them, and here, also, is a map which illustrates them, and shows everything precisely as 1 have read it from the treaties" (not treaty.) lie then proceeds to point out c i rors which it is not necessary to examine, for they have reference exclusively to the treaty between Great Britain and Russia, and not to that between Russia and the United States. Our treaty merely provides that the parallel of fifty-four forty shall be our northern boundary. Now, what have the errors of geographers or map makers, in the protraction of the line between Kussia and England, to do with the plain and undeniable boundary which limits our pos sessions 1 A boundary so plain, indeed, that he who runs may read it in the treaty. What, therefore, is the direction of the other line the Anglo-Russian line which the Senator has discussed, and whether it goes to fifty-live, or fifty-six, or sixty-one dcg., or, indeed, to the north pole, touches us as little as any other question in political geography. inen, sir, nity-iour is resuscuaieo, orougiu io me an existing boundary, to which we may go, but beyond which we may not pasa. We cm jam vp to it without any imputation upon our wisdom or our non or ; "ami lac place v.vrc U uas- is jet i.icre, ana . i til.. 1 there it trill continue to be. It will be recollected, sir, that the honorable Sena tor has staked this issue upon the existence of this line of fifty-four forty ; and when we point to the Russian treaty, he attempts to meet us by his construction of a treaty, nrd of the causes that led to it, between Russia and England. We repudiate this, and refuse to have our line annihilated without our consent. The line, then, exists, though the honorable Sena tor sava it is confined by the precise terms cf the treaty "to the islands and coasts, and having no manner of relation to the continent," And again : "This is the Russian line on the continent with Great Britain ; the United States have no continental line, either with Russia or Great Britain," Strange assertions, as 1 shall show. Were this even so, still wo should have our favorite line, thcugh it might 6top short of the eastern extent of our claim, and though the honorable Senator says we have "no boundary at fifty-four forty." Rut where does this line etop in its easterly progress 1 The honorable Senator says it does not touch the "continent." Why he makes it an insular boundary in the very face of an express stipulation, that it shall extend to the islands and coasts, I know not. As he gives no reasons for this limitation of the natural construction of the articlo not, indeed, its natural construction merely, but its express and positive declaration I must be permitted to believe that coast is the cotwf of the continent, and the islands "the islands adjacent to it." Adjacent to what! To the coast. To what coast? To the northiccst coast of America. The treaty recognizes two geographical divisions the coast, or continent, and the adjacent islands; the honorable Senator says it is confined to the islands, and does not extend to the coiiltincnt, or coast. I cannot argue this point By each of these conventions he says "the Russian claim is conßned to the coasts and islands ; and by each the same limit is given both to the United States and Great Britain," fyc. It teas a limit icholly in the water, not at aiton the land ; t!ie British only reached it by going through Portland channel." I don't understand this at all, sir. The Senator one moment says that the United States and Great Britain have both the same limit ; in the next, that our line never touches the land, but the British line does. The fact is, they have not the same line at all. Ours is the parallel of fifty-four forty, continental and insular, for the distinction of the Senator between the two is wholly gratuitous, unknown to the convention. The British line commences at a point on that parallel, and then quits it, running thence such courses as give to Russia an irregular parallelogram, extending north and soutli along the coast, and east in w idth ten marine leagues from the sea. But what is the meaning of the phrase northwest coast of America in this connexion 1 To what extent may it be fairly said to reach 1 In the British treaty, as above quoted, the question is placed beyond controversy. The Russian possessions, as between England and Russia, are limited to ten marine leagues from the coast. As between Russia and us there is no limitation, and if a limitation be sought, it must be found in the circumstances and in a fair application of the language to them. It is a geographical fact well known to "all who have investigated the subject, that the northicest coast of America is the name by which a large but indefinite region upon the shores of the Facific, extending eastward without positive limits, was designated and recognized, as well in works of geography and history, as in diplomatic documents. It was a descriptive term, applied to a vast country. I shall place this beyond controversy by reference to unrjuestionablo authorities. In the very convention with England of 1818, by which a joint occupation of Oregon is held, the whole country itself is distinguished by this appellation: It is agreed that any countir that may be claimed by either raity on thi northwitt coast f America westward of the Mony mountains," arc. And twice iu that instrument the said country is alluded to. And it will be seen that this designation carries the region described by it to the Rocky mountains ; .or in other words, designates the whole country by that comprehensive term. In the British statement, annexed to the protocol of tne sixth conference, by .Alesirs. ltuskisson and Addington, British plenipitentaries in the negotiation of 'J-i2S-n, it is said : "The government cf Great Britain in proposing to renew for the leim of ten years, the third aiticle of the convention of 18 IS. respecting ihe territory on the northwest coast of America wet to tha Kucky mouutan.s," sec. Spaia ceJed to the United States all their rights and claim on the western coast of America, and noith to the 42J degree." In the Nootka Sound convention, the country generally i called the northwest coast. In the counter statement of Mr. Gallatin, he speaks of the territory in questron, and he saya : "That by the Nootka convention, all the parts of the northxest coast of America, occupied by either party," fce. Using the terms territory and northicest coast, aa convertible, and designating the same country. "Finally," says Mr. Rush, in the histiry of his residence at the court of London, page 312, "it was agreed that the country on the northwest qoast of America, westward of the Rocky mountains, claimed by either party," i.e. Mr. Adams, in a letter to Earon Tuyl, dated May 7, 1923, speaks of the "rights and interests which bave been brought into collision upon the northwest coast." In the instructions from Mr. Adams to "Mr. Middle-

ton, dated 23d July, 1823, he describes the country

at the northwest coast. He says: M A Russian charier give to the American company the northwest coast of America from 55 degrees to Lehiiu's strait." . : - He further says, in a letter to Mr. Middlcton: " You are authorized to propose an article of the same import for tha terra of ten yean, for ttie signature of a j int convention between the United Sta.cs, Great Uiiiaw, aud RussW." . He says, in the same letter to Mr. Rush: lf the British Northwest and Hudson's Bay Company; have any po;u ou lAe coast, ,s au-e.tsd h. the article in Uuartcilr Review, abort- cited, the ttilid aiticle of the conveniiun of the tOh October, ISIS, is applicable to thein. j Mr. Middlcton is aotboiized io propose au article of similar import to be insetted iu a j int convention between the United Statia, Great Britain, and Russia for a teim of ten 1 years from its signature. You are authorized to make Ahe J

aire nrouosal to me uutiMi government; ana, trim a view y-, . - , , A ,, , to draw T definite line of demarcation for the future, to Ir- KUsh cfc,Tcd Q 51ät Paralld 88 a ComPrstipulite that no settlement shall hereafter be made on the nuso line for our boundary ; and Mr. Gallatin, as I

StlD nor.ftiTfSf coisr, or on any ot tne nuuas acy lining, oy ussun subjects south of latitude 55 deg.; by citizens of the United States north of latitude 51 deg ; or by Biilisb subj.cts either south of öl deg. or north of 65 deg." For it Bhowed," says the honorable Senator from Missouri, in a speech in 13-13, " that the British had no rights on the northicest coast." " It was nut until we discovered the Columbia that Ehe renewed her claim to any territory on the norfAires coast." "Our title is good against England throughout the coast," ore. ' . . 1 T. 1 .1 . .1 This lanfruae is conclusive, it is gdvious mai tue whole northveest coast, or Oregon, ia referred to ; and the parties claiming it are recognized as the United States, Great Britain and Russia. A division of their respective pretensions is proposed by east and west lines, thus separating the region into three districts, lying respectively north or south of ono another. 1 here is no diuerence in tne description or meir claims. Insular or continental, they are all the same in their eastern extension. These proofs that the descriptive appellation northvest coast was applied generally to the country north of California, and wist of the Rocky mountains, might be multiplied almost indefinitely ; but it is not necessary ; the examples already given establishing the fact beyond controversy. If, therefore, the honorable Senator from Missouri seeks to contine the epi thet northicest coast to the narrow region within sight and sound of the surges of the ocean, he seeks a con struct ion and contraction inconsistent with the histori cal geography cf the country, as well as with the rights and intentions of the parties. Our northwest coast, which is now our Oretron, by the arrangement with Russia, cannot extend north of 54 40 min. and ber northicest coast cannot extend south of that l:ne. The longitudinal extent of cither is a question that does not concern the other. Our claim in that direc tion is from the Tacific to the Rocky mountains. Russia, since her treaty with us, has entered into a convention with England, by which she restricts her claim to an extent of ten marine leagues from the coast. Before that, she was fres to carry her title to the Rocky mountains, the eastern boundary of the northicest coast, lhis subsequent arrangement net ther affects our rights nor our duties, and 54 deg. 40 mm. is yet the barrier, beyond which we cannot pass What would be the condition of the parties if Russia had formed no convention with England 1 What riüht should we then have to say, that the Russian pretensions do not extend over the whole of the coun try of the northwest coast, but are limite 1 to ten marine leagues from it 1 None whatever. And how can a subsequent convention between other parties regulate a prior instrument, to which we were a party 7 When we made an arrangement with Russia, our country of the northicest coast stretched to the Rocky mountains. We promised that power that we would not pass the parallel of 54 deg. 40 min. in our north ward progress. What right have we to say that Rus sia did not mean, by the same descriptive words, what we meant, or that that power did not assert any claim over the country designated by them 1 The northwest coast for her, says the honorable Senator, is the islands adjacent to it ; while for us, it is the whole country to the Rocky mountains ! Our duties are to be judged by existing circumstances, and not by sub sequent arrangements between diherent parties. With the motives of Russia, or the cousideration which England gave her for the cession, we have no concern Had the former power ceded her whole claim to the latter, our obligations would have remained the same. The benefit being transferred to England, instead of being held by Russia, 51 dcg. 40 min. we said to Russia is our line in the country of the northwes coast. And there I hope ve shall be found. Cut, if the honorable Senator from Missouri should succeed in the establishment of his position, that we are not bounded on the north by this parallel of 54 deg. 40 min., I do not see that the little band is in any worse condition, or the pretensions of the country at all diminished for the former seems to be intimately connected with the latter ; but quite the contrary. In that event, we should fall back upon our original Spanish title, and carry our claim to the parallel of CI dcg. Our arrangement with Russia was an agreement to take less than the claim we could rightfully urge, as the grantees of the Spanish government. The honorable Senator, in the farther prosecution of his argument, that we have no claim to fifty-four forty, says that we offered that line to Russia, as her southern boundary, and to England as her northern. He then refers to the proposition made by Mr. Rush, who offered 51 deg. as our northern boundary, and says we now seek to go jam up to 54 40, after the otfer of 51, which was refused by England. Why, sir, all this history of the negotiation is well known, and I must confess I do not see its bearing upon the peculiar views presented by the Senator. He is seeking to show the inconsistency of the American government in urging a claim to 54 40, after having offered to accept the parallel of 51 deg. as our northern boundary. But why select this offer for this purpose ? We have made a much more favorable one for England, w hich she has more than once refused. We have offered 49 deg, and as late as the last season. If these changes are proofs of inconsistency, the last being the greatest, furnishes the strongest evidence of it. I repeat, sir, What new view is present by going back to the offer of Mr. Rush in 1823, when that of Mr. Buchanan in 1615, yielded two degrees more of latitude 1 But there was not the slightest inconsistency, then, nor is there now. This branch of the subject has been already fully debated, and I have no disposition to renew the discussion. These otTers were all offers of compromise, made in a spirit of concession, and not the assertion of a claim ; and when rejected, the party making them was at full liberty to urge its whole title unembarrassed by the.3e efforts at concilia tion, and without being obnoxious to the charge of inconsistency. And this was recognized and distinctly stated to the British government by Mr. Gallatin in 1327, who said, that " his government did not hold itself bound hereafter, in consequence of any proposal which it had made for a line of separation between the territories of the two nations beyond the Rocky mountains, but would consider itself at liberty to contend for the full extent of the claims of the United States." Here, sir, the American government, in 1327, maintained that the offers thus made and rejected did not reach to the extent of their full claims, lut that being rejected, we were at liberty to fall back upon onr original title, as though these attempts at compromise had not been made. What right, then, has the honorable member from Missouri to charge the American government with inconsistency, because it offered 51 deg. and then 49 deg., and these offers being refused, and all efforts at compromise hopeless, now urges the full extent of its claim, aa it announced in 1327 it would do ! Before proceeding further, sir, I desire to remove from tills discussion the honored names of Jefferson and Madison. On a former occasion, I stated the circumstances under which they acted, and explained, I thought sufficiently, why their sentiments and course imposed no rule of conduct on us in the new situation in which we are placed, unknown to them. They sought the northern limits cf Louisiana, and their extension west of the TaciSc. And they found some historical memorandum stating that the parallel of 49 deg. had been established under the treaty of Utrecht as a dividing line between the French and RritUh possessions on the American continent. They were indeed aware that the subject was doubtful ; for Mr. Mudison,in his first instructions, instead of asserting the fact, as the honorable gentleman from Missouri thinks he did, says': " Ture is reason to believe it;" and he says still further; " you will perceive the necessity of recurring to the proceedings of the commissaries as the source of authentic information." " Tliese are not within our reach here," tyc. And this was before our purchase of the Spanish claim, which perfected and completed our title. The course these eminent statesmen pursued was the best tinder the then existing circumstances. What they diJ no

possess, we have acquired. What they did not know' .

we have discovered. We have extended our claim J"" t7 new purcnasc, ana wc nave ascertained, what Mr. Mad.Bon appears to have suspected, that the historical statement respecting the establishment of t -i i- . . the parallel of 4'J dcg., at any rate west of the Rocky mountains is incorrect, and that no such line exists And the same remark applies, although to a less extent, to the cabinets of Mr. Monroe, and of Mr. Adams, both of whom have been appealed to by the Senator from Missouri in support of his position. Florida was not nurchased until tnwnrdt tho rinse r,f the first term of Mr. Monroe, and after that time the . . . ... . ,. , , nolion he 4Udi para lcl had been established under the treaty ol Utrecht, and extended perhaps west of the Rocky mountains may have produced rae impression. Rut it is obvious that it did not 1, influence the course of the rrovernment. have already said, repudiated the early offers, and went back to the whole claim. Now, sir, where is this monstrous inconsistency ajid injustice which the honorable Senator sees in the assertion of our claim by the present administration uorth of the 49h ! If the cabinet of Mr. Adams believed we were included by the treaty of Utrecht and by a line estallisned under it, how they came to pass oeyona mat line, ana to oner as a compromise two degrees of latitude north of it, indicating by the very offer itself, that our just claim went beyond that lmui And what waa meant by the semi-protest of Air. Lrallatin, announcing that the preceding proposals tnose ot Ol and 4 -havinjj been rr jected, his cov crnracnt would now contend lor the full claims of the united ötatest iliese lull claims of course went beyond 51 deg.; and having cot so far on the north side of 4'J deg., and so near 51 40 with the cabinet of Mr. Adams, I shall leave to the honorable Senator from Missouri the task of reconciling their conduct with the belief that this barrier of 49 rises like a great fortification to check our further progress in a nortnern direction. The Senator from Missouri has again submitted Lis views, respecting the establishment of the parallel of under the treaty ot Utrecht. Jn the former dis cussions his object was to vindictae the truth of his tory, and to redeem the character of the American Senate from the charge of ignorance. He expressly stated that he made no practical application of the mam fact. How the ground seems to be changed The Senator says that my endorsement of Mr. Grcenhow's error in a blundcrintr book, " lavs him under the necessity of correcting a third error which the fifty-four forties hug to their bosoms." e do not claim any exemption from the ordinary frailties of humanity. If we hug. to our bosoms the rights and interests of our country, we can bear to be sneered at, though at the same time we may be per muted to investigate the facts and the deductions by which the charges against us are so confidently urged. 1 shall not go over this matter of the treaty of Utrecht. I am unwilling even to allude to it again. Rut I cannot be driven from my position, or surrender it without defence. I shall, however, touch the topic very briefly, confining myself to the new views pre sented by the Senator from Missouri. The benator says that my endorsement of Mr. Greenhow's blunders has rendered this vindication necessary. In the first place, I have not endorsed Mr. Greenhow's assertions or conclusions, be they blunders or be they truths. With respect to the only point made by the Senator before the establishment of the parallel of 49 east of the Rocky mountains, I expressly stated that it was a subject upon which reasonable men might differ. I stated that the positive aud negatitve evidence produced by Mr. Greenhow, had induced me to believe that no such line had been run, bu' I expressly disclaimed the very endorsement which the gentleman now charges upon me. But I will add, that all my subsequent examination and reflection have fortified this belief, and I am more and more convinced that the assertion respecting the establishment of this line is an historical error, which should be removed from all our debates on this subject In the second place, the honorable Senator has re newed this discussion for a new purpose, not before avowed. It is now not alone with a view to vindicate history, and to redeem the character of the Senate, as on the former occasion ; but also for a much more important object for the eslallishmcnt (f a political right. The subject ceases to be one of speculation, and becomes one of action. This line is now pushed across the Rocky mountains, and is interposed as barrier to the extension of the territorial claim which our government has asserted Before I proceed further, allow me to say that the fifty-four-forties occupy the negative side of this posi tion. Ihe proof must come Irom their opponents. It is said that our claim is limited by the parallel of 4'J deff. Ihe existence of a claim is conceded on all hands. It its extension north, it is met by the as sertion, that its further progress in that direction is stopped by a line on the parallel 49 dc. estab lished by the treaty of Utrecht more than a century ago. Now let those who say this prove it. The burden is upon them. The assumption, till shown, and satifactoruy shown, is purely gratuitous. And the proof must be reasonable, and such as suits the circumstances; not loose assertions and quotations from historical works, without authority upon such a subject. And more especially when there as a vast number cf circumstances of a positive and a negative character which discredit the establishment of such boundary. And w Len the notices referred to seem to be repeated successively from one work to another, without any examination of their authenticity, and depending perhaps on one common and erroneous uri . w ... origin, w uy, tne very discussion in whicn we are engaged proves the necessity of adhering to estab lished principles. A suit for 121 cents could not be maintained upon such proof as is here adduced when so much better is within the reach of the parties. iwo months are amply sutticient to produce from the archives of London or Faris ' evidence upon this subject which would terminate the controversy. Un til that is produced, I, for one, shall protest against the rights of our country Dein limited or affected by the assumption of a line resting merely upon loose as sertions and upon deductions made for them. With respect to the existence of this line under the treaty of Utrecht, what evidence, not already considered, and, as I think, fairly refuted, has the senator from Missouri produced ! I shall 'glance at, rather than examine, the facts he has brought forward. First, he states that the British Indian traders ask ed as a favor to be permitted to trade in Louisiana south of 4'J, which was refused. The official communication of the British ministers, referred to in support of the above assertion respecting this parallel docs not support it. The application was made under the treaty of 1794. Louisiana was acquired subse quently. IS'o specific boundaries arc alluded to, but a claim is made to trade with the Indians in Louisiana. But the honorable senator states that Major Stod dart, who was then, I think, not governor of Louistana, but military commandant at St. Louis, in bis sketches of that country, speaks of his northern bound ary as follows: " The commerce of Crozat by the term of the patent ex tended to tbe utmost limits of Louisiana in that quarter, which, by me tieaty or Utrecht ia 1713, was fixed at tbe 4Uth decree." . I think I aiay safely appeal to the honorable sena tor and ask him whether he thinks such a mere as sertion as this is entitled to any weight in the deter minatiou of this grave question 1 Major Stoddart says that, by the treaty of Utrecht, 49 deg. was the northern boundary of Louisiana. But Major Stoduart was no ongiual authority on such a subject more especially at tho distance of a century from the execution ol the treaty. Ite had, no, doubt, read the statement of Douglass, which I will again quote at the hazard of reietition, as it seems to have been the source of the opinion entertained respecting this matter. His language may be more or less traced in all the notices Uiat I have observed. . He says, page 7: "By the treaty, however, tha Canada or Freacli line with the Hudson Bay Company of Great Britain waa ascertained from a cer ain piomoutoiy upon tbe Atlantic ocean, in fifty degreea thirty minutes of noitb latitude, to tun southwest to Lake Mistissin, to bo continued still southwest to the fortyninth degree, and fiom tUeuce du weit indefinitely. Eut, sir, notwithstanding the reverence the honor able senator from Missouri professes for the views of those who bave preceded us in their action on this subject, he himself arraigns the conduct of Mr. Monroe in concluding a convention with England in 1818, by which the parallel of 49 deg. was established as the line of demarcation between her western possessions and ours cast of the Rocky mountains. lie says " the treaty of Utrecht did for us what our own treaties did not." "Tat convention was an act of supererogation, so far as it followed the line of Utrecht an act of deep injury so far rus.it stopped it."

"The fine of 49 de, was jast as well established, and

as well respected and baeived from the ..Lake of tha WW VW W Ml. WW UIW'lUI.IILj. 1ltVIW IU.I WVUWW.Ul.VU r., ; k. nw.l st alter it. Iay, moie, it was the understood line between those monnuiniandtbesfa.andwouii i'seif hive settled tbe Oiegon question, and settled it wisely and beneficially if is had only been permuted to remain nntnutijaled." Then, sir, these jifty-four-forties are uot the only vi'sw ti. D.b itr.. ik., ...-.,:,- r persons who lu-e discredited the existence ot this line east of the Kocky mountains. It has been author ita - tivelr a:l Tractjcsllv disclaimed, and disavowed, and discredited, both by the British and American governmcnts. 1 he act by which th is was done he calls an act of " suncrero-ratioii." I call it an act of wisdom. founded on the conviction of both of the parties tkat a line of demarcation between their respective territo ries was necessary, and never had been established. The honorable senator censures Mr. Monroe for this arrangement. But Mr. Jefferson is equally censura ble, so far as respects this work of supererogation, for he made precisely the same offer to England in liOl. He, indeed, struck out a provision that the arrange ment should not extend west of the Rocky mountains ; but he did this in order not to excite the jealousy of j opain. I he honorable gentleman, in the previous discus sion of this matter, did not present this subject in the same point of view. After noting the prrjets for the establishment ol 4y deg., he says : " Here is concur rence in the proceedings of commissaries under the treaty of Utrecht," Here is submission on the pan oi me lriusn, ccc. wnai was then concur rence and submission row becomes supererogation. But, sir, Mr. Jtfferson's fame may be redeemed, and the credit ot the American and .british covernments tar common sense supported, by reference to a very obvious consideration ; and that is to a doubt respect ing the existence of this line of 4Q dear. a doubt which, in oil probability, ultimately strengthened into 1 conviction. The very view which the honorable sen ator now presents was presented by myself iu a for mcr discussion, in order to prove that all the states. men alluded to must have believed -or suspected this celebrated line was a nonentity. This work, then, which occupied the attention of the two governments, at various intervals, for ten years, was not a work of supererogation, but of prudence. I said : " But if by concurrence is meant that this line was actually es tablishcd by the treaty of Utrecht, and thus binding on the parties, no other convention was necessary Roth nations, upon this assumption, mistook their owu rights and their duties. Tbe boundary had been es tahlished a century before, and they were carrying on a useless and barren negotiation, which was thus blindly ana unnecessarily ripened into a treaty in 31?." The senator introduces a memorial from Lord Sei Kirn, in which mere is an allusion, alinougü not a L I 1 I .1 w w very clear one, to the treaty of Utrecht; but as it says expressly that " the stipulations of the treaty of Utrecht as to the limits of the Hudson Bav territories do not bear at all upon the question," and as this memorial is characterized by the American ministers as an tule paper, 1 shall not stop to examine it, espc cially as I know of nothing in the position or char acter of Lord Selkirk which would ive to his opinion any peculiar weight in the adjustment of this ques tion The establishment of a great national boundary requires better evidence than the surmise of even a scotch nobleman, possessed of no source of information not open to all of us. We want facts, and not op inions, and facts authentically proved. 1 pass bv, also, the memorial of Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney to the Spanish minister, because they repeal uie same iacis in aimosi me same language which were communicated by Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe, and which have been traced back to Douglas. These gather no strength from repetition, and must be judged by the original authority, and not by the number ot transcribers. The honorable senator has made a remark, in the justice of which I fully concur. He says : "That when a man is strii'sliD in a just cause, he gen erally gets help, and often from unseen and unknown quar ters." He says " that timely assistance has como to him in this matter," and among these unforseen contribu tations, he has introduced a letter from Mr. Titkin to Mr. Webster, in which the writer eneers at my crcd ulity, or pities it, I know not which, because I have placed myself upon the statements rf Mr. Greenhow I shall not turn out of my path to redeem myself from this charge of credulity, or what would be still less desirable to escape the pity of Mr. Titkin. I have more important objects in view. That gentleman refers to a conversation which took place at the dinner table of Mr. Jefferson in 1300, in which that eminent man advanced the opinion that by the treaty of Utrecht the parallel of 49 deg. was established as a boundary between the French and English possessions. The opinion of Mr. Jefferson gains no weight by this rep etition or it. We had it before in a much more au thentic form, in the letter of instruction from Mr, Madison, Secretary of State, to Mr. Monroe. I repeat, sir, we must pass by all these opinions, formed a century after the event to which they refer, and go the original authorities, which are as open to us, as they were to our predecessors, and with the additional ben efit of a severe and long continued investigation. Mr. Pitkin transmits also an extract from the work of Colonel Hutchins, which was presented by Colonel Tickenng to Mr. Jefferson, and the senator from Missouri seems to give importance to this additional testimony. It is 6till the same question the question of repetition. I must make my acknowledgments, as well as the senator from Missouri, to friendly contributors; and only one gentleman whom I will name and he is not only a personal friend, but a man of reading and judgment, (Mr. liuel, of Detroit; has investigated the subject with research and care, and has furnished me with the result of his labors. I owe to him an extract from Salmon's modern history, published in 1746, which I will refer to. I shall place in juxtaposition the extract from Hutchins, furnished by Mr. Pitkin, by which it will be sufficiently evident that these authorities are essentially the same, the latter being derived, iu all probability, from tlie former: From Salmon. " And commissaries did afterwards settle the limits by an imaginary line drawn from a promontory situated on the Atlantic ocean, ia ÖS degrees 30 minutenan'l running from thence southwest to the Lake Miscosink, or Mitstazan, and from thence southwest indefinitely to the latitude of 49, all the countries to the north being askigned to Great Britain, and all on th south, between that line and the river St. Lawrence, or Canada, to Fi ante." From Hutchins. "And commissaries after wards, on both aides, ascer tained the limits by an img mary line runmo from a cape, or promontory, in New Britain, on the Atlantic ocean, in 60 degrees 30 minutes noith latitude, then southwest to the Lake Misgasing, or Mistasfin; from thence further southwest direct to the latitude of 49 degrees. All tbe landa to the north of the imaginary line being assigned to Great Brittain, and all aouthwatd of that line, as far as tbe riv er bt Lawrence, to the French." These extracts, sir, are similar in their Statements, and almost the tamc in their language. The. one was parent, and the other offspring. There are but two differences emendations made by Hutchins from his own views, or from information obtained elsewhere. One is the substitution of latitude 50 deg. 30 min., and the other is in changing southwest indefinite ly to southwest direct. This unfortunate line has so many Protean shapes, that it eludes all attempts to seize it. The senator from Missouri says that " this was, without doubt, the identical paper transmitted by Mr. M-idison to Mr. Monroe and he adds: 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, and with hopes of better results." My opinion on this subject remains unshaken. The identity of the language used by Mr. Monroe,- in carrying into effect the instructions of Mr. Madison, with the language employed by Douglas, as I stated on a former occasion, leaves no doubt of their common origin. Let us compare them : Mr. Monroe says. Douglas says. "The boundary was as- The tine was ascertained ccrtained by a line, beginning from a certain promontory on in the Atlantic, at a capo or promontory, ia 63 deg. 30 mio. north latitude; thence southwesterly to Lake Mi-flisin; thence further 'southwest to tbe latitude of 49 deg. north from tbe equator, and alucg the Atlaulic ocean, in 58 deg. 30 miu .of north latitude, to run southwest to Like Mistusen, to be continued still southwext to the 49lb degree, and from thence due west indefinitely." that hoe indefinitely." Now, sir, there is in these extracts a parity, not to 6ay an identity of language, which speaks their common origin, as Salmon was tne autnoruy ior Hutchins, so was Douglas the authority for Mr. Monroe. How the senator from Missouri could refer to the extracts from Mr. Hutchins in proof that a line was established by the treaty of Utrecht, west of tbe Hud son 5 Bay Company possession, and sull mors Low he

could refer to it as the foundation of the represent

,lnn m4 bv Mr. MnI.n anil Mr. Mrmrrw i tn m - " W W W J I 1 - " 1 "incomprehensible. ny this line, according to tT ,. . . , , , Hutchins, expressly stop- when it reaches the pa rallei of 49, and yet his authority is here introduced in j support of the statement of its indefinite extension oo j that parallel, and its continuance as our boundary to T J ' " - jtiie lucinc. 1 His Lnc runs from Lake -Misgasing cr Mistassin directly southwest to the parallel tf 4'J de?. It will be found ty reference to the maps that this lake is in latitude 50 der. 3U min.. ( nearly.") and almost north j of Quebec. A line run thence southwest would strike the parallel cf 49 deg., nearly north of Cornwall, in Ixwer Canada, and about 200 miles from that place. The lake is itself on $ r f the sources of Rupert's river, a confluent of Hudson's bay. And the country divided by this line may be described in general terms as lying between Hudson a bay and the Atlantic, north of the St. Lawrence.- Thus confirming the reference. made by Salmon and by Hutchins after him to the southern extensions of the region partitioned between England and France Now, sir, bow stands this matter! Douglas said this line started from a promontory in 58 deg. 80 min.. and ran thence southwest to Lake Mastissm; thence southwest to the 49th degree; thence indefinitely west. Salmon said the line started from a promontory in 58 dcg. 30 min., and ran thence southwest to tbe Lake Mascosink or Mistassin, and thence southwest indefinitely to the latitude of 49 dcg. Jeffreys said the line started in about the latitude of 56 deg., and drawing with it a curve (mirabile diclu!) through tlie Lake Abitibis down to the 49th degree ; thence to the Jsorthwest ocean. Hutchins said the commissioners ascertained this limit by an imaginary line from a cape or promontory in New Britain, on the Atlantic ocean, in 50 dej 30 mm. north ; thence southwest to Lake IMisgasmg or Mistassin; from thence further southwest to latitude 49 de". Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney said the line began ia a cape or promontory in deg. nun., to run thence southwesw ardly to 49 degrees, and thence indef initely west. Here, sir, are no less than five different boundaries referred to as established under the treaty of Utrecht. We cannot believe they are all correct. And which arc we to choose ! Are we to Btop at 49 deg., with Salmon and Hutchins 1 or are we to rro on indefinitely west with the other authorities. Is the course to bo direct or curvilinear 1 These loose statements are altogether too doubtful, indefinite, and contradictory to be relied upm in such an investigation. ' They are practical illustrations of the wisdom of the principle 11 - i a i .a . j . i which requires tne ocst evidence tne nature oi me case admits. That best evidence is at London and at faris. Let it be produced. ( 'Concluded In ovr next. J The " Notice" in England. One fact has reached us by the last arrival from England, of greater importance, we think, than has usually been attributed to it. The British press has indicated fully and distinctly the tone of public feelinz in England unon tlie reception of the vote of the Senate upon the notice. Two circumstances are remarkable in the articles upon this subject of the leading British journals. In the first place they concur in regarding tlie notice I as a peace measure, looking to tlie prompt adjustment of the difficulties between the two nations. In the second place, and this is more noteworthy very many oi iiicm concur in regaraing uie notice vote passed by the Senate as substantially the same notice which the President recommended. One of these journals -and that, not the least pacific among them, Btates in terms, and in full view of the Senate preamble and resolution, "that the resolution as it 6tands might in fact have been drawn by Mr. Tolk himself" meaning by this, we presume, that Mr. Tolk's purpose was, upon its face, an effort to bring matters to a speedy and peaceable adjustment, so soon as such an adjustment could be made compatably with our national rights and interests. What a significant commentary is here presented upon the various charges or rather the various series of charges against the President, all resulting in the accusation that he was bent upon a war with England ! The case is a very stron;- one. The President nroDoses unon the Oregon ouestion a new Dolicr. The spirit of par'T rlsea op in Congress and all over the country to proclaim, that this new policy will precipitate us into a war. Congress spends live or six months in debating the matter, makes what are deemed important alterations in the 6bape it is to assume tlie vote goes over to England, and is then proclaimed to be very much the same vote which the President recommended, and, at the same time, a vote strongly indicative of peaceful purpose and intention. A more triumphant refutation of party clamor cannot be imagined. When the measures proposed by the Executive meet such a reception abroad, is it not, we respectfully ask, much to be regretted that a distinguished senator should be found urging on the Senate of tlie United States to a premature ascertainment by ita legislation of a boundary line, when the boundary must, after all, be settled by the Executive in negotiation, and when that negotiation must hereafter come before the Senate for revision ! Where is the expediency of determining the result of a negotiation in which two parties must join while that r.egoliation yet remains open ! Washington Union. Ireland. The evictions of tenantry, which are now going on in Ireland, are another livid festering spot, marking the progress of tlie plague which is destroying the whole social system in that country. The details which have for tlie last fortnight appeared in our daily papers, are really almost too painful and distressing for perusal. The famino-cry from unhappy Ireland is daily, hourly, becoming louder, longer, and more thrilling. Even some of tlie most obdurate of the monopolists begin to admit that Sir Robert Teel was no unnecessary alarmist In another month that distressing wail must have reached the most insensate cars, and sunk deep into the heart of every man in the Kingdom who has a soul to feci and a hand to relieve. Connected with Irish politics, stands the strange conduct of Mr. Smith O'Erien, the member for Limerick, who is now a prisoner in one of the cells of the House of Commons, having been committed thereto for a breach of privilege and contempt of the orders of the House. All members of the Commons, according to the resolutions of the House, are liable to serve on committees, either for the disposal of public or private bills. The lists are fairly made out, and members are chosen by rotation. Mr. O'Connell, though exempt from serving on committees by age, being about sixty, has been unceasing in his attendance as chairman on a committee to which had been referred an English railway bill.' All the other repeal members have readily given their services on committees ; but Mr. O'Erien declines to serve on any question before a committee, which is not purely Irish. When drawn upon a committee having before it some English bill, he refused to attend; and when the lame was reported to the House, his conduct was declared to be in contempt, and his contumacy was rewarded by commitment to the custody of the messenger. The Bocnda bt of Texas. McCulloch, in his last Gazetteer, thus describes Texcs: "Texas, a new and independent republic of North America, between the United States and Mexico, extending from 20 to 40 deg. N. lat, and from 91 to 103 deg. V. long. It is separated from Mexico on the south cni wist by the llio Grande, or Bravo del Norte; on the north the Red River.aud trie Arkansas chiefly separate it from the west territory of the United States; on the east the river Sabine separates it from Louisiana, and south east it borders on the Gulf of Mexico." In liO, II. G. Ward, British charge d'affaires to Mexico, published a volume on that country. He thus Bpeaks of the attempts that had been made to purchase Texas by the United States : "With regard to Texas, it is now seven years since the design of appropriating to themselves that fertile province, and thus extending Vicir frontier to the Rio liraxo Oci liortc, uiu jir a. wtrtviuci. i States" tS-c. The Edinburgh Review. April, 1941, thus describes in part, the Boundary of the "Republic of Texas":- ' . .. . o 1' . HP 'Un the north-east the river oaome separates iex- .. r. - i T - . I. . 1 . C as Irom the otate or .Louisiana ; uie .un-: uuurw o the Rio Grande del Norte, from its mouth to its source, forms its south-western and western boundary." Throughout this article the Rro Grande is spoken of as the boundary of Texas. Boston Post. . A Boston company have purchased of the British gtvcrhmcnt the great coal mines on the St. John's river.