When the first convention was concluded in 1818 our whole population did not exceed nine millions of people. The portion of it inhabiting the States in the great Valley of the Mississippi was probably under the million seven hundred thousand, of which not more than two hundred Now our population may thousand were on the west side of that river.

be safely estimated at not less than nineteen millions, of which at least eight millions inhabit the states and territories in the Valley of the Mississippi, and of which upwards of one million are in the states and territories west of that river. This portion of our population is now increasing far more rapidly than ever, and will in a short time fill the whole tier of States on its western bank.

To this great increase of population, especially in the Valley of the Mississippi, may be added the increased facility of reaching the Oregon Territory in consequence of the discovery of the remarkable pass in the Rocky Mountains at the head of the La Platte. The depression is so great and the pass so smooth that loaded waggons now travel with facility from the Missouri to the navigable waters of the Columbia River. These joint causes have had the effect of turning the current of our population towards the territory; and an emigration estimated at not less than one thousand, during the last, and fifteen hundred during the present year, has flowed into it. The current thus commenced will no doubt continue to flow with increased volume hereafter. There can then be no doubt, now that the operation of the same causes which impelled our population westwards from the shores of the Atlantic across the Alleghany to the Valley of the Mississippi will impel them onward with accumulating force across the Rocky Mountains into the Valley of the Columbia, and that the whole region drained by it is destined to be peopled by us.

Such are our claims to that portion of the territory, and the grounds on which they rest. The Undersigned believes them to be well founded, and trusts that the British Plenipotentiary will see in them sufficient reasons why he should decline his proposal.

The Undersigned Plenipotentiary abstains, for the present, from presenting the claims which the United States may have to other portions of the territory. J. C. CALHOUN.

The Undersigned, &c.,
Washington, September 3, 1844.

(Signed)

Inclosure 2 in No. 17.

D

Statement of the British Plenipotentiary, containing the Claims of Great Britain to the Oregon Territory.

THE Undersigned, British Plenipotentiary, has studied with much interest and attention the statement marked A, presented by the American Plenipotentiary, setting forth the grounds on which he declines the proposal offered by the British Plenipotentiary as a compromise of the difficulties of the Oregon Question. The arrangement contemplated by that proposal would, in the estimation of the American Plenipotentiary, have the effect of restricting the possessions of the United States to limits far more circumscribed than their claims clearly entitle them to.

The claims of the United States to the portion of territory drained by the Columbia River are divided into those adduced by the United States in their own proper right and those which they have derived from France and Spain.

The former, as against Great Britain, they ground on priority of discovery, and priority of exploration and settlement,

The claim derived from France originates in the Treaty of 1803 by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as they had been acquired by the French Republic; and the claim derived from Spain is founded on the Treaty concluded with that Power in the year 1819, whereby His Catholic Majesty ceded to the United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions

D 2

to the territories lying east and north of a certain line terminating on the Pacific in the forty second degree of north latitude.

Departing from the order in which these three separate claims are. presented by the American Plenipotentiary, the British Plenipotentiary. will first beg leave to observe, with regard to the claim derived from France, that he has not been able to discover any evidence tending to,! establish the belief that Louisiana, as originally possessed by France, and afterwards transferred to Spain, then retroceded by Spain to France, and e ultimately ceded by the latter Power to the United States, extended in a westerly direction beyond the Rocky Mountains. There is, on the other. hand, strong reason to suppose that, at the time when Louisiana was. · ceded to the United States, its acknowledged western boundary was the Rocky Mountains. Such appears to have been the opinion of President. Jefferson under whose auspices the acquisition of Louisiana was accom plished. tuy n H

In a letter written by him in August 1803, are to be found the following words:The boundaries (of Louisiana) which I deem not admitting question, are the high lands on the western side of the Mississippi, inclosing all its waters, the Missouri, of course, and terminating in the line drawn from the north-west point of the Lake of the Woods, to the, nearest source of the Mississippi, as lately settled between Great Britain and the United States."

In another and more formal document dated in July, 1807, that is to say, nearly a year after the return of Lewis and Clarke from their expedi tion to the Pacific, and fifteen years after Gray had entered the Columbia River, is recorded Mr. Jefferson's opinion of the impolicy of giving offence to Spain by any intimation that the claims of the United States extended to the Pacific, and we have the authority of an American historian, distinguished for the attention and research which he has bestowed on the whole subject of the Oregon Territory, for concluding that the western boundaries of Louisiana, as it was ceded by France to the United States, were those indicated by nature, namely, the high lands separating the waters of the Mississippi from those flowing into the Pacific.

1

From the acquisition, then, of Louisiana, as it was received from France, it seems clear that the United States can deduce no claim to terri-, t... tory west of the Rocky Mountains. But, even it were otherwise, and if France had ever possessed or asserted a claim to territory west of the Rocky Mountains, as appertaining to the territory of Louisiana, that claim, whatever it might be, was necessarily transferred to Spain, when Louisiana was ceded to that Power in 1762, and of course became subjectere to the provisions of the Treaty between Spain and Great Britain, of 1790, which effectually abrogated the claim of Spain to exclusive dominion over, the unoccupied parts of the American continent,

To the observations of the American Plenipotentiary respecting the effect of continuity in furnishing a claim to territory the Undersigned has // | not failed to pay due attention, but he submits that what is said on this head may more properly be considered as demonstrating the greater degree of interest which the United States possess, by reason of contiguity, in acquiring territory in that direction, than as affecting in any way the question of right.

:1 1

The Undersigned will endeavour to show hereafter that in the proposal put in on the part of Great Britain the natural expectations of the United States on the ground of contiguity have not been disregarded.) 1 Next comes to be examined the claim derived from Spain.

It must, indeed, be acknowledged that, by the Treaty of 1819, Spain, did convey to the United States all that she had the power to dispose of on the north-west coast of America, north of the forty-second parallel of latitude, but she could not by that transaction annul or invalidate the rights which she had by a previous transaction acknowledged to belong to another Power.

By the Treaty of 28th October, 1790, Spain acknowledged in Great Britain certain rights with respect to those parts of the western coast of America not already occupied.

This acknowledgment had reference especially to the territory which

ດ

T

1

forms the subject of the present negotiation. If Spain could not make good her own right to exclusive dominion over those regions, still less could she confer such a right on another Power; and hence Great Britain argues that from nothing deduced from the Treaty of 1819 can, the !!.. United States assert a valid claim to exclusive dominion over any part of the Oregon Territory, Janeiro tort to Fodt dil bo There remains to be considered the claim advanced by the United. States on the ground of prior discovery and prior exploration and settle

ment. }

1

? היד

In that part of the memorandum of the American Plenipotentiary which speaks of the Spanish title it is stated that the mouth of the river,} { afterwards called the Columbia River, was first discovered by the Spanish navigator, Heceta. The admission of this fact would appear to be alto-oi gether irreconcileable with a claim to priority of discovery from anything accomplished by Captain Gray. To one, and to one only, of those com- ! manders can be conceded the merit of first discovery. If Heceta's claim is acknowledged then Captain Gray is no longer the discoverer, of the Columbia River; if, on the other hand, preference be given to the achievement of Captain Gray then Heceta's discovery ceases to be of any value. But it is argued that the United States now represent both titles, the title of Heceta and the title of Gray; and therefore that under the one or the other, it matters not which, enough can be shown to establish a case of prior discovery as against Great Britain. This may be true as far as relates to the act of first seeing and first entering the mouth of the Columbia River; but if the Spanish claim to prior discovery is to prevail. whatever rights may thereon be founded are necessarily restricted by the stipulations of the Treaty of 1790 which forbid a claim to exclusive possession. If the act of Captain Gray in passing the bar and actually entering the river is to supersede the discovery of the entrance, which is all that is attributed to Heceta, then the principle of progressive or gradual discovery being admitted as conveying, in proportion to the extent of discovery of exploration, superior rights, the operations of Vancouver in entering, surveying, and exploring, to a considerable distance inland, the River Columbia, would, as a necessary consequence, supersede the discovery of Captain Gray, to say nothing of the act of taking possession, in the name of his Sovereign, which ceremony was duly performed and authentically recorded by Captain Vancouver.

This brings us to the examination of the conflicting claims of Great Britain and the United States on the ground of discovery, which may be said to form the essential point in the discussion, for it has above been shown that the claim derived from France must be considered as of little or no weight; while that derived from Spain, in as far as relates to exclusive dominion, is neutralized by the stipulations of the Nootka Convention. 200

It will be admitted that when the United States became an independent nation they possessed no claim, direct or indirect, to the Columbia Territory. Their western boundary in those days was defined by the Treaty of 1783; Great Britan, on the contrary, had at that time already directed her attention to the north-west coast of America, as is sufficiently shown by the voyage and discoveries of Captain Cook who, in 1778 visited and explored a great portion of it from latitude 44° northwards.

1

That Great Britain was the first to acquire what may be called beneficial interests in those regions by commercial intercourse will not either be denied; in proof of this fact we have the voyages of the several British subjects who visited the coast and adjacent islands previously to the dispute with Spain; and that her commerce, actual as well as prospective, in that part of the world was considered a matter of great national importance is shown by the resolute measures she took for its protection when Spain manifested a resolution to interfere with it.

The discoveries of Meares in 1788, and the complete survey of the coast and its adjacent islands, from about latitude 40° northwards, which was effected by Captain Vancouver, in 1792, 1793, and 1794, would appear to give to Great Britain, as against the United States, as

1

strong a claim on the ground of discovery and exploration coastwise as can well be imagined, limited only by what was accomplished by Gray at the mouth of the Columbia, which, as far as discovery is concerned, forms the strong point on the American side of the question.

In point of accuracy and authenticity, it is believed that the performances of Cook and Vancouver stand pre-eminently superior to those of any other country whose vessels had in those days visited the north-west coast, while in point of value and importance surely the discovery of a single harbour, although at the mouth of an important river, cannot, as giving a claim to territory, be placed in competition with the vast extent of discovery and survey accomplished by the British navigators.

As regards exploration inland entire justice must be done to the memorable exploit of Messrs. Lewis and Clarke, but those distinguished travellers were not the first who effected a passage across the Oregon Territory, from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific. As far back as 1793 that feat had been accomplished by Mackenzie, a British subject. In the course of this expedition Mackenzie explored the upper waters of a river, since called Fraser's River which, in process of time, was traced to its junction with the sea, near the forty-ninth degree of latitude, thus forming, in point of exploration, a counterpoise to the exploration of that part of the Columbia which was first visited by Lewis and Clarke.

Priority of settlement is the third plea on which the American claim proper is made to rest.

In 1811 an establishment for the purposes of trade was formed at the south side of the Columbia River, near to its mouth, by certain American citizens; this establishment passed, during the war, into the hands of British subjects, but it was restored to the American Government in the year 1818 by an understanding between the two Governments. This is the case of priority of settlement, since which it has not in reality been occupied by the Americans. The American The American Plenipotentiary lays some stress on the admission attributed to Lord Castlereagh, then Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the American Government had the most ample right to be reinstated, and to be the party in possession, while treating of the title. The Undersigned is not inclined to dispute an assertion resting on such respectable authority, but he must observe, in the first place, that the reservation implied by the words "while treating of the title," exclude any inference which might otherwise be drawn from the preceding words prejudicial to the title of Great Britain; and further, that when the authority of the American Minister is thus admitted, for an observation which is pleaded against England, it is but fair that on the part of the United States credit should be given to England for the authenticity of a despatch from Lord Castlereagh to the British Minister at Washington, which was communicated verbally to the Government of the United States, when the restoration of the establishment called Astoria or Fort George, was in contemplation, containing a complete reservation of the right of England to the territory at the mouth of the Columbia. (Statement of British Plenipotentiaries, December, 1826.)

In fine, the present state of the question between the two Governments appears to be this: Great Britain possesses and exercises, in common with the United States, a right of joint occupancy in the Oregon Territory, of which right she can be divested, with respect to any part of that territory, only by an equitable partition of the whole between the two Powers.

It is, for obvious reasons, desirable that such a partition should take place as soon as possible, and the difficulty appears to be in devising a line of demarcation which shall leave to each party that precise portion of the territory best suited to its interest and convenience.

The British Government entertained the hope that by the proposal lately submitted for the consideration of the American Government that object would have been accomplished; according to the arrangements therein contemplated, the northern boundary of the United States west of the Rocky Mountains, would, for a considerable distance, be carried along the same parallel of latitude which forms their northern boundary on the eastern side of those mountains, thus uniting the present Eastern Boun

23

dary of the Oregon Territory with the Western Boundary of the United States from the 49th parallel downwards. From the point where the 49° of latitude intersects the north-eastern branch of the Columbia River, called in that part of its course Mc Gillivray's River, the proposed line of boundary would be along the middle of that river, till it joins the Columbia, then along the middle of the Columbia to the Ocean, the navigation of the river remaining perpetually free to both parties.

In addition Great Britain offers a separate territory on the Pacific, possessing an excellent harbour, with a further understanding that any port or ports, whether on Vancouver's Island or on the Continent, south of the 49th parallel, to which the United States might desire to have access, shall be made free ports.

It is believed that, by this arrangement, ample justice would be done to the claims of the United States, on whatever ground advanced, with relation to the Oregon Territory. As regards extent of territory they would obtain, acre for acre, nearly half of the entire territory to be divided; as relates to the navigation of the principal river, they would enjoy a perfect equality of right with Great Britain; and with respect to harbours, it will be seen that Great Britain shows every disposition to consult their convenience in that particular.

On the other hand, were Great Britain to abandon the line of the Columbia as a frontier, and to surrender her right to the navigation of that river, the prejudice occasioned to her by such an arrangement would, beyond all proportion, exceed the advantage accruing to the United States from the possession of a few more square miles of territory. It must be obvious to every impartial investigator of the subject that in adhering to the line of the Columbia Great Britain is not influenced by motives of ambition with reference to extent of territory, but by considerations of utility, not to say necessity, which cannot be lost sight of, and for which allowance ought to be made in an arrangement professing to be based on considerations of mutual convenience and advantage.

The Undersigned believes that he has now noticed all the arguments advanced by the American Plenipotentiary in order to show that the United States are fairly entitled to the entire region drained by the Columbia River. He sincerely regrets that their views on this subject should differ in so many essential respects.

It remains for him to request that, as the American Plenipotentiary declines the proposal offered on the part of Great Britain, he will have the goodness to state what arrangement he is, on the part of the United States, prepared to propose for an equitable adjustment of the question; and more especially, that he will have the goodness to define the nature and extent of the claims which the United States may have to other portions of the territory, to which allusion is made in the concluding part of his statement, as it is obvious that no arrangement can be made with respect to part of the territory in dispute while a claim is reserved to any portion of the remainder.

The Undersigned, &c.,
Washington, September 12, 1844.

(Signed)

R. PAKENHAM.

No. 18.

Mr. Pakenham to the Earl of Aberdeen.-(Received October 15.)

(Extract.)

Washington, September 28, 1844.

WITH reference to my despatches of 29th August and of 12th September on the subject of the Oregon negotiation I have now the honour to transmit a copy of a second paper presented by Mr. Calhoun, in rejoinder to my reply to his first statement, a copy of which was transmitted with my despatch of 12th September.