Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Twentieth Congress Page: 174
391, 74, viii p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
174
GALES & SEATON'S REGISTER
H. or R.]
Occupancy of the Oregon River.
[.Tan • 6, 1829.
in favor of that bill, that the measures proposed by it
would, in the event of its being' carried into execution,
put a final termination to the excesses of those miserable
and benighted savages1 Mr. B. then referred to the state-
ment of the individual from Montreal, and of Mr. Wilson P.
Hunt. They might be true, said he, to a certain extent—
but they were, if taken on the whole, delusions—not in-
tentional or wilful delusions, he firmly believed. He,
himself, might suppose, or even go near to admit the fact,
that the valleys were beautiful in appearance; clothed
with verdure; smiling with the earliest productions of
Spring; perhaps, as the gentleman from Massachusetts
had observed in his quotations, enamelled with the bright-
est of flowers, and irrigated by the most chrystal of wa-
ters. But what was to be founded upon such bases? The
bounty of nature in those regions was perfectly illusory.
The excellencies of soil and climate which lie Unci feebly
attempted to describe, and which certainly were confined
to the raising of esculent roots, were limited in their ex-
tent, transitory in their nature, and brief indeed in their
duration. Those valleys, of which so much had been said,
were annually inundated—in the month of June they were
invariably, as he had before stated, submerged in deep
water, arising from the melting of the snow. The House
should not confound that question with matters of com-
merce, with which it had no necessary connexion, and
thereby give a factitious importance to a subject in his
opinion altogether worthless. After some further obser-
vations, Mr. B. 1 said he cordially concurred in the pro-
priety of diminishing- the British influence over the In-
dians, with whom the citizens of the United States were
continually in contact. But how was that to be done ?
Why, let them put an end to the intercourse carried on
between the British and the Indians across the Canadian
frontiers, and then that House and the country would hear
ivo more of murders perpetrated by savages, armed with
British rifles of recent manufacture—with rifles bearing
on their locks the stamp of 1824. To return to the ques-
tion before them. Let the House take the pains to col-
lect the necessary information, before fixing upon a per-
manent basis their relations with a people comparatively
unknown, and certainly wild, uncivilized, and barbarous.
Let them not establish a precedent, which, in after times,
might be followed, to the destruction of the republic. In
the course of those convulsions and revolutions to which,
it appeared probable, their neighbors on the southern part
of the continent would have to pass through, the ambition
of the United States—if they might learn from the experi-
ence of past ages, even republics were ambitious—would,
it was within the compass of human probability, lead them
to look to a further and wider extension of their power
Was there no such place as the island of Cuba—an island
lying' off the Gulf of Mexico, commanding the debouche of
the Mississippi, and being-, therefore, the key of the whole
trade of the West? Were there not such fair domains to
grasp lit, as some desirable: parts of Mexico and Colombia?
He begged the House to reflect upon such things; to take
into their most discreet and grave consideration the im-
portance of that question, and the momentous consequen-
ces which might result upon it; and then to say collec-
tively to the nation, and individually to their constituents,
whether the passage of that bill would conduce to the in-
terest of the Union.
Mr. TAYLOR said lie had no desire to undervalue the
territory in question, although the most authentic accounts
concerningit, which lie had been able to examine, induced
him to believe it w idely different from the "terrestrial
paradise" which it had been represented by the writer in-
troduced bv the gentleman from Massachusetts, :^ir.
K v !.i: ::tt. ] The information communicated to this com-
mittee by tile gentleman from Missouri, [ Air. Bates] was
derived from sources of great respectability. It. was suffi-
cient, at least, to teach us caution; to sera! explorers be-
fore we take military possession of the country by the
erection of forts. But, admitting it to be a good country,
capable of rewarding the industry and enterprise of our
traders, does it follow that we ought to erect forts and
garrison tliem with troops ? What is our actual situation
in regard to this territory? The treaty of 1818, between
the United States and Great Britain, failed to define the
limits between the two Governments. Both claimed title
to it, and, to prevent disputes, it was agreed that it should
remain free and open to the citizens and subjects of the re-
spective Powers for ten years. That provision has re-
cently been renewed for an indefinite time, reserving to
each Government a right to terminate it by giving twelve
months' notice. Until such time, neither party is entitled
to exclusive possession. Now, I ask, what possession can
be more exclusive than that which consists in building-
forts with our national treasure, and garrisoning them
with our national troops? I view this matter, [said Mr.
T.] very different from the defences erecteel by traders,
to protect them in their business of trapping and hunting,
against the violence of savages or rivals. Whatever may
be the relative rights to this country, of the United States
and Great Britain, so far as present possession is concern-
ed we have agreed to be tenants in common. No act
can lie rightfully done by one party, which may not with
equal propriety be done'by the other. If we may erect a
fort on the Columbia River, Great Britain may do the same.
The words of the treaty apply to every part of the territory.
I pray your attention to the phraseology:
"It is agreed that any country that may be claimed by
either party, on the Northwest Coast of America, west-
ward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its har-
bors, bays, and crocks, and the navigation of all rivers
within the same, be free and open to the vessels, citizens,
and subjects, of the two Powers, it being well understood
that this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice
of any claim which either of the two high contracting
parties may have to any part of the said country, nor shall
it be taken to affect the claim of an\ other Power or State
to any part of the said country; the only object of the high
contracting parties, in thatrcspect, being to prevent dis-
putes and differences among themselves."
Do gentlemen agree that Great Britain has a right to
build a national fortress on the South side of the Colum-
bia, and to garrison it with British troops? No, they do
not. They protest against it. They talk of national
honor, and defending our title to the last extremity. But
they seem to forget that the question of title is ill abey-
ance, if I may so speak, and must remain so while the trea-
ty is in force regulating the possession. I compare this
territory to a waste or open common, lying between two
manors. The proprietors of each claim title to the whole;
they attempt to agree on a division; various propositions
arc made and rejected) anel finally it is agreed to occupy
jointly, for the present, reserving a right to each, when-
ever he shall think proper, on reasonable, notice, to dis-
solve the joint possession, and enforce his separate title in
his own way. If, during the continuance of this agree-
ment, either party should enclose a portion of the common
for his separate use, or strengthen himself in its possession,
so that he could hold it against right, if the title should be
adjudged in the other, in my opinion he would be a viola-
tor of the compact. In this, in our thriftless haste to co-
lonize this ultima Untie of business, I think we are begin-
ning at the wrong end of America—nay, not of America—
but of the habitable earth; we seem to overlook the natural
order of things. If the treaty is found to be injurious to
the United States, nothing is easier than to get rid of it.
A short notice to the British Government will enable us
to take our own course in this matter, free, at least, from
the: imputation of bad faith. Suppose, however, the trea-
ty to be set aside, and, confident in our title to the country,
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Twentieth Congress, book, 1830; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30754/m1/178/: accessed May 8, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.