THE Undersigned, American Plenipotentiary, has read with attention the counter-statement of the British Plenipotentiary, but without weakening his confidence in the validity of the title of the United States to the territory, as set forth in his statement marked A. As therein set forth, it rests, in the first place, on priority of discovery sustained by their own proper claims, and by those derived from Spain through the Treaty of

Florida.

The Undersigned does not understand the counter-statement as denying that the Spanish navigators were the first to discover and explore the entire coasts of the Oregon Territory; nor that Heceta was the first who discovered the mouth of the Columbia River; nor that Captain Gray was the first to pass its bar, enter its mouth, and sail up its stream; nor that these, if jointly held by the United States, would give them the priority of discovery which they claim.

On the contrary, it would seem that the counter-statement, from the ground it takes, admits that such would be the case on that supposition; for it assumes that Spain, by the Nootka Sound Convention, in 1790, divested herself of all claims to the territory founded on the prior discovery and explorations of her navigators; and that she could consequently transfer none to the United States by the Treaty of Florida. Having put aside the claims of Spain by this assumption, the counter-statement next attempts to oppose the claims of the United States by those founded on the voyages of Captains Cook and Meares, and to supersede the discovery of Captain Gray, on the ground that Vancouver sailed further up the Columbia River than he did, although he affected it by the aid of his discoveries and charts.

The Undersigned forbears to enter into an examination of the truth or error of the position which the counter-statement has assumed, without assigning the reasons in support of it. It is sufficient on his part to say that in his opinion there is nothing in the Nootka Sound Convention, or in the transactions which led to it, or the circumstances attending it, to warrant the assumption. The Convention relates wholly to other subjects; and contains not a word in reference to the claims of Spain. It is on this assumption that the counter-statement rests its objection to the well-founded American claims to priority of discovery; without it there would not be a plausible objection left to them.

The two next claims on which the United States rest their title to the territory as set forth in statement A, are founded on their own proper right, and cannot possibly be affected by the assumed claims of Great Britain, derived from the Nootka Convention.

The first of these is priority of discovery and exploration of the head waters and upper portion of the Columbia River, by Lewis and Clarke, by which that great stream was first brought to the knowledge of the world, with the exception of a small portion near the Ocean, including its mouth. This the counter-statement admits, but attempts to set off against it the prior discovery of Mackenzie of the head waters of Frazer's River-quite an inferior stream which drains the northern portion of the territory. It is clear that whatever right Great Britain may derive from his discovery, it can in no degree affect the right of the United States to the region drained by the Columbia, which may be emphatically called the River of the territory.

The next of these, founded on their own proper right, is priority of settlement. It is not denied by the counter-statement that we formed the first settlements in the portion of the territory drained by the Columbia River; nor does it deny that Astoria, the most considerable of them, was restored under Article III. of the Treaty of Ghent, by agents on the part of Great Britain, duly authorized to make the restoration, to an agent on

the part of the United States, duly authorized to receive it. Nor does it deny that, in virtue thereof, they have the right to be reinstated and considered the party in possession, while treating of the title, as was admitted by Lord Castlereagh in the Negotiation of 1818; nor that the Convention of 1818, signed a few days after the restoration [of Astoria], and that of 1827, which is still in force, have preserved and perpetuated, until now, all Helthe rights they possessed to the territory at the time, including that of of being reinstated, and considered the party in possession, while the the ques

tion of title was depending, as is now the case. It is true it attempts to of weaken the effect of these implied admissions, in the first place, by desigdonating positive treaty stipulations as an understanding between the two wo Governments," but a change of phraseology cannot possibly transform to 7ic treaty obligations into a mere understanding; and in the next place, by stating that we have not, since the restoration of Astoria, actually occuopied it; but that cannot possibly affect our right to be reinstated and to ooolbe considered in possession, secured to us by the Treaty of Ghent, implied

in the act of restoration, and since preserved by positive treaty stipulaBtions. Nor can the remarks of the counter-statement in reference to adioLord Castlereagh's admission weaken our right of possession secured by the Treaty, and its formal and unconditional restoration by duly authorized agents. It is on these, and not on the denial of the authenticity of mobord Castlereagh's despatch, that the United States rest their right of Hoi possession, whatever verbal communication the British Minister may 00have made at the time to our Secretary of State'; and it is on these that 1975 they may safely rest it, setting aside altogether the admission of Lord Castlereagh, ode 1 bins Tul to notiokiza bes

491

"

1

The next claims on which our title to the territory rests are those momoderived from France by the Treaty ceding Louisiana to the United States, bobandincluding those she derived from Great Britain by the Treaty of 1763. ab Ito established the Mississippi as the irrevocable boundary between the od territories of France and Great Britain, and thereby the latter surid to rendered to Frances all her claims on this continent west of that river, including, of course, all within the chartered limits of her colonies which extended to the Pacific Ocean. On these, united with those of France, moniash the possessor of Louisiana, we rest our claim of continuity, as jextending to that ocean, without an opposing claim, except that of Spain, To which we have since acquired, and consequently removed, by the Treaty of Florida.com 10 J obot day 20 Zac

(

to The existence of these claims the counter-statement denies, on the authority of Mr. Jefferson; but, as it appears to the Undersigned, withOout adequate reasons. He does not understand Mr. Jefferson as denying that the United States acquired any claim to the Oregon Territory by the acquisition of Louisiana, either in his letter of 1803, referred to by the JOJ counter-statement, and from which it gives an extract, or in the document itself, that 19gogo 1807, to which it also refers. It is manifest from the extract it's

esi

1) the object of Mrs Jefferson was, not to state the extent of the claims acquired with Louisiana, but simply to state how far its unquestioned bad boundaries extended, and these he limited westwardly by the Rocky Mountains. It is in like manner manifest from the document, as cited by dothe counter-statement, that his object was not to deny that our claims extended to the territory, but simply to express his opinion of the impolicy to join the then state of our relations with Spain of bringing them forward. This, so far from denying that we had claims, admits them by the clearest d to implication. If, indeed, in either case, his opinion had been equivocally no expressed, the prompt measures adopted by him to explore the territory after the Treaty was negotiated, but before it was ratified, clearly show boothat it was his opinion not only that we had acquired claims to it, but highly important claims, which deserved prompt attention.f tooing In addition to this denial of our claims to the territory on the authority of Mr. Jefferson, which the evidence relied on does not seem to Gio sustain, the counter-statement intimates an objection to continuity as the www.foundation of a right, on the ground that it may more properly be considered (to use its own words) as demonstrating the greater degree of interest which the United States possessed by reason of contiguity, in E

1764

1

**;

1

acquiring territory in a westward direction. Contiguity may, indeed, be regarded as one of the elements constituting the right of continuity, which is more comprehensive, and is necessarily associated with the right of occupancy, as has been shown in Statement A. It also shows that the laws which usage has established in the application of the right to this continent, give to the European settlements on its eastern coasts an indefinite extension westward. It is now too late for Great Britain to deny a right on which she has acted so long, and by which she has profited so much, or to regard it as a mere facility not affecting in any way the question of right. On what other right has she extended her claims, westwardly to the Pacific Ocean, from her settlements round Hudson's Bay; or expelled France from the east side of the Mississippi in the war which terminated in 1763?

1

As to the assumption of the counter-statement that Louisiana, while in the possession of Spain, became subject to the Nootka Sound Convention, which, it is alleged, abrogated all the claims of Spain to the territory, including those acquired with Louisiana, it will be time enough to consider it after it shall be attempted to be shown that such, in reality, was the effect. In the mean time, the United States must continue to believe that they acquired from France by the Treaty of Louisiana important and substantial claims to the territory.

The Undersigned cannot consent to a conclusion to which, on a review of the whole ground, the counter-statement arrives, that the present state of the question is, that Great Britain possesses and exercises, in common with the United States, a right of joint occupancy in the Oregon Territory, of which she can be divested only by an equitable partition of the whole between the two Powers. He claims, and he thinks he has shown, a clear title, on the part of the United States, to the whole region drained by the Columbia, with the right of being reinstated and considered the party in possession while treating of the title, in which character he must insist on their being considered, in conformity with positive treaty stipulations. He cannot, therefore, consent that they shall be regarded, during the negotiation, merely as occupants in common with Great Britain; nor can he, while thus regarding their rights, present a counter proposal, based on the supposition of a joint occupancy merely, until the question of title to the territory is fully discussed. It is, in his opinion, only after a discussion which shall fully present the titles of the parties respectively to the territory that their claims to it can be fairly and satisfactorily adjusted. The United States desire only what they may deem themselves justly entitled to, and are unwilling to take less. With their present opinion of their title, the British Plenipotentiary must see that the proposal which he made at the second conference, and which he more fully sets forth in his counter-statement, falls far short of what they believe themselves justly entitled to.

In reply to the request of the British Plenipotentiary that the Undersigned should define the nature and extent of the claims which the United States have to the other portions of the territory, and to which allusion is made in the concluding part of Statement A, he has the honour 'to inform him, in general terms, that they are derived from Spain by the Florida Treaty, and are founded on the discoveries and exploration of her navigators, and which they must regard as giving them a right to the extent to which they can be established, unless a better can be opposed. (Signed) J. C. CALHOUN.

Inclosure 2 in No. 18.

Protocols of the Conferences between the British and American

Plenipotentiaries.

ON the 23rd of August, 1844, a conference was held by appointment at the office of the Secretary of State in the city of Washington, between the Honourable John C. Calhoun, Secretary of State of the United States, and the Right Honourable Richard Pakenham, Her Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, both duly authorized by their respective Governments to treat of the respective claims of the

416

two countries to 'the Oregon Territory, with the view to establish a permanent boundary between the two countries westward of the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.

J

The conference was opened by assurances on both sides of the desire of their respective Governments to approach the question with an earnest desire, and, in the spirit of compromise, to effect an adjustment consistent with the honour and just interests of either party, The Plenipotentiaries then proceeded to examine the actual state of the question as it stood at the last unsuccessful attempt to adjust it.

This done, the American Plenipotentiary desired to receive from the British Plenipotentiary any fresh proposal he might be instructed to offer on the part of his Government towards affecting an adjustment.

The British Plenipotentiary said he would be ready to offer such a proposal at their next conference, hoping that the American Plenipotentiary would be ready to present a proposal on the part of his Govern

- ment.

99! The conference adjourned to meet on Monday the 26th instant.

On the 26th of August, 1844, the second conference was held between the respective Plenipotentiaries, at the office of the Secretary of State.

The British Plenipotentiary offered a paper containing a proposal for adjusting the conflicting claims of the two countries. The American Plenipotentiary declined the proposal. Some remarks followed in reference to the claims of the two countries to the territory, when it became apparent that a more full understanding of their respective views in reference to them was necessary at this stage in order to facilitate future /proceedings.

יו

It was accordingly agreed that written statements containing their views should be presented before any further attempt should be made to adjust them.

It was also agreed that the American Plenipotentiary should present a statement at the next conference; and that he should inform the British Plenipotentiary when he was prepared to hold it.

Minule of the Second Conference between the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and the United States, held at the Office of the Secretary of State, on the 26th August, 1844.

The minute of the preceding conference having been read over and signed the British Plenipotentiary informed the Plenipotentiary of the United States that the proposal which he was instructed to offer, on behalf of his Government, with a view to a settlement of the NorthWestern Boundary Question, was as follows:

That whereas the proposals made on both sides in the course of the last negotiation had been mutually declined, Her Majesty's Government were prepared, in addition to what had already been offered on the part of Great Britain, and in proof of their earnest desire to arrive at an arrangement suitable to the interest and wishes of both parties, to undertake to make free to the United States any port or ports which the United States' Government might desire, either on the mainland, or on Vancouver's Island south of latitude 49°.

On the 2nd of September, 1844, the third conference was held at the office of the Secretary of State, according to appointment do. 11997 19.The American Plenipotentiary presented a written statement, of his domiews of the claims of the United States to the portion of territory drained zby the waters of the Columbia River, marked A and containing his cand bosreasons fondeglining to accept the proposal offered by the British Pleniedipotentiaisy at their second conference. zingmaovob) azidoagkar. (Signed) R. PAKENHAM.

J. C. CALHOUN.

On the 12th of September, 1844, the fourth conference was held at theT office of the Secretary of State, when the British Plenipotentiary presented his statement marked D, counter to that of the American Plenipotentiary, marked A, presented at the preceding conference.!

wwp Lodi doide

nid (Signed) od R. PAKENHAM.

J. C. CALHOUN.

At the fifth conference, held at the office of the Secretary of State, on the 20th of September, the American Plenipotentiary delivered to the British Plenipotentiary a statement, marked B, in rejoinder to his counter-statement marked D.

R. PAKENHAM

J. C. CALHOUN.

The sixth conference was held on the 24th of September, when the!!! I British Plenipotentiary stated that he had read with due attention the b statement marked B, presented by the American Plenipotentiary at the do last conference, but that it had not weakened the impression previously t entertained by him, with regard to the claims and rights of Great Britain,mė oda as explained in the paper lately presented by him, marked D. That," reserving for a future occasion such observations as he might wish to present, by way of explanations, in reply to the statement last presented by the American Plenipotentiary, he was for the present obliged to declare, with reference to the concluding part of that statement, that he did not feel authorized to enter into discussion respecting the territory north of 49th parallel of latitude, which was understood by the British Government to form the basis of negotiation on the side of the United States, as the line of the Columbia formed that on the side of Great Britain.

D

vest dla mna bizcord dont w sy That the proposal which he had presented was offered by Great unco dow Britain as an honourable compromise of the claims and pretensions of both #7 of parties, and that it would of course be understood as having been made of sorod subject to the condition recorded in the protocol of the third conference! I held between the respective Plenipotentiaries in London, in December, 17 ton zil R. PAKENHAM-bro J. C. CALHOUN,

1826.

(Signed)

Sir,

Foreign Office, November 1, 1844. YOUR several despatches respecting the progress of your negotiations with the United States' Government on the Oregon Question, down tal to the date of the 28th September, have engaged the attentive consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

I have much pleasure in informing you that the manner in which you have conducted those negotiations has met with the entire approval of Her Majesty's Government.

Notwithstanding the concessions we may be prepared to make, on taking a general view of the matter as it now stands, it appears to Her od dz Majesty's Government that there remains little reasonable hope that the United States will relax their pretensions, and meet us in any scheme for a compromise which we could safely and honourably adopt. Under these circumstances, and taking into view the state of excitement so prevalent og menkat in the United States upon this subject, by which the free action of the Government is greatly fettered, if not altogether paralysed, I think it will be desirable, if an opportunity should offer, to have recourse, without delay, to arbitration, as the mode most likely to be available for the settlement of the question.

You will, therefore, do well to profit by any favourable opportunity which may present itself to sound the American Government on this point, and if you should find them disposed to accede to such a mode of adjustment, you will formally propose it to the Secretary of State.