USA > California > The history of Oregon and California & the other territories of the northwest coast of North America > Part 37
USA > Oregon > The history of Oregon and California & the other territories of the northwest coast of North America > Part 37
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53
By the second article, -
" The company may make new discoveries, not only north, but also south, of the said 55th parallel of latitude, and may occupy and bring under the dominion of Rus- sia all territories thus discovered, observing the rule, that such territories should not have been previously occupied and placed under subjection by another nation."
334
EXTRAVAGANT PRETENSIONS OF RUSSIA.
[1822.
coveries of the Russians in 1799 ; since which period they had made no discoveries or establishments south of the said line, on the coast now claimed by them. With regard to the suggestion that the Russian government might justly exercise sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea, because it claims territories both on the Asiatic and the American shores, Mr. Adams merely observed, that the distance between those shores, on the parallel of 51 degrees north, is four thousand miles ; and he concluded by expressing the persuasion of the president that the citizens of the United States would remain unmolested in the prosecution of their lawful com- merce, and that no effect would be given to a prohibition manifestly incompatible with their rights.
The Russian minister plenipotentiary, a few days after the receipt of Mr. Adams's last communication, sent another note, supporting the rights of his sovereign, in which he advanced "the authentic fact, that, in 1789, the Spanish packet St. Charles, commanded by Captain Haro, found, in the latitude of forty-eight and forty-nine degrees, Russian establishments, to the number of eight, consisting, in the whole, of twenty families, and four hundred and sixty-two individuals, who were the descendants of the companions of Cap- tain Tchirikof, supposed until then to have perished." Respecting this " authentic fact," it has been shown, in the account * already given of the Spanish voyage to which the Chevalier Poletica refers, that Martinez and Haro did find eight Russian establishments on the North Pacific coast of America in 1788, but that they were all situated in the latitudes of fifty-eight and fifty-nine degrees, and that the persons inhabiting them had all been, a short time previous, transported thither, from Kamtchatka and the Aleutian Islands, by Schelikof, the founder of the Russian American Company. The minister doubtless derived his information from the introduction to the journal of Marchand's voyage ; but he neglected to read the note appended to that account, in which the error is explained.
The prohibitory regulation of the Russian emperor, and the correspondence relating to it, were immediately submitted to the Congress of the United States ; and, in the ensuing year, a nego- tiation was commenced at St. Petersburg, the object of which was to settle amicably and definitively the limits of the territories on the north-west side of America, claimed by the two nations re- spectively, and the terms upon which their navigation and trade in the North Pacific were in future to be conducted. A negotiation,
* See p. 186.
335
DECLARATION OF PRESIDENT MONROE.
1823.]
for similar purposes, was, at the same time, in progress at St. Peters- burg, between the governments of Russia and Great Britain ; the latter power having formally protested against the claims and princi- ples advanced in the ukase of 1821, immediately on its appearance, and subsequently, during the session of the congress of European sovereigns at Verona .* Under these circumstances, a desire was felt, on the part of the government of the United States, that a joint convention should be concluded between the three nations having claims to territories on the north-west side of America; and the envoys of the republic at London and St. Petersburg were severally instructed to propose a stipulation to the effect that no settlement should, during the next ten years, be made, in those territories, by Russians south of the latitude of 55 degrees, by citizens of the United States north of the latitude of 51 degrees, or by British subjects south of the 51st or north of the 55th parallels.
This proposition for a joint convention was not accepted by either of the governments to which it was addressed ; the principal ground of the refusal by each being the declaration made by Presi- dent Monroe in his message to Congress, at the commencement of the session of 1823, that - in the discussions and arrangements then going on with respect to the north-west coasts - " the occasion had been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for colonization by any European power."t Against this declaration,
* Debate in Parliament on the inquiry made by Sir James Mackintosh on this subject, May 21, 1823.
t The message of December 2d, 1823, containing this declaration, also announced the resolution of the United States to view "as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition " towards themselves any attempt, on the part of a European power, to oppress or control the destiny of any of the independent states of America. This noble resolution was taken upon the assurance that the United States would, if ne- cessary, be sustained in enforcing it by Great Britain, without whose cooperation it would have been ineffective, certainly as to the prevention of the attempts. The circumstances which induced the American government thus, at the same time, openly to offer a blow at the only nation on whose assistance it could depend, in case the anticipated attempts should be made by the despotic powers of Europe, have not been disclosed. That it is the true policy of the United States, by all lawful means, to resist the extension of European dominion in America, and to confine its limits, and abridge its duration, wherever it may actually exist, is a proposition which no arguments are required to demonstrate, either to American citizens or to European sovereigns; but this proclamation, by the government of the United States, of its intention to pursue those ends, could have no other effect than to delay the attainment of them, as it has evidently done.
336
RECOMMENDATIONS OF GENERAL JESUP.
[1823.
which - however just and politic might have been the principle announced - was unquestionably imprudent, or at least premature, the British and the Russian governments severally protested ; and as there were many other points on which it was not probable that the three powers could agree, it was determined that the negotia- tions should be continued, as they had been commenced, separately at London and at St. Petersburg.
Another publication, equally impolitic on the part of the Ameri- can government, soon after contributed to render more difficult the settlement of the question of boundaries on the Pacific between the United States and Great Britain.
A select committee, appointed by the House of Representatives of the United States, in December, 1823, with instructions to inquire into the expediency of occupying the mouth of the Columbia, requested General Thomas S. Jesup, the quartermaster-general of the army, to communicate his opinions respecting the propriety of the measure proposed, as well as its practicability and the best method of executing it; in answer to which that officer sent, on the 16th of February, 1824, a letter containing an exposition of his views of the true policy of the United States with regard to the north-west coasts and territories of America, and of the means by which they might be carried into effect. Leaving aside the question as to the rights of the United States, he considered the possession and military command of the Columbia and of the Upper Missouri necessary for the protection, not only of the fur trade, but also of the whole western frontier of the republic, which is every where in contact with numerous, powerful, and warlike tribes of savages : and, for this purpose, he recommended the immediate despatch of two hundred men across the continent to the mouth of the Columbia, while two merchant vessels should transport thither the cannon, ammunition, materials, and stores, requisite for the first establish- ment ; after which, four or five intermediate posts should be formed at points between Council Bluffs, on the Missouri, (the most western spot then occupied by American troops,) and the Pacific. By such means, says the letter, " present protection would be afforded to our traders, and, on the expiration of the privilege granted to British subjects to trade on the waters of the Columbia, we should be enabled to remove them from our territory, and to secure the whole trade to our own citizens."
The report of the committee, with the letter from General Jesup annexed, was ordered to lie on the table of the House, and nothing
337
NEGOTIATION AT LONDON.
1824.]
more was done on the subject during that session ; the papers, however, were both published, and they immediately attracted the attention of the British ministry. In a conference held at London, in July following, between the American envoy, Mr. Rush, and the British commissioners, Messrs. Huskisson and Stratford Canning, the latter gentlemen commented upon the observations of General Jesup, particularly upon those respecting the removal of British traders from the territories of the Columbia, which, they said, " were calculated to put Great Britain especially upon her guard, appear- ing, as they did, at a moment when a friendly negotiation was pending between the two powers for the adjustment of their relative and conflicting claims to that entire district of country."
It is moreover certain, from the accounts of Mr. Rush, as well as from those given subsequently by Mr. Gallatin, that the publication of General Jesup's letter, and the declaration in President Monroe's message against the establishment of European colonies in America, rendered the British government much less disposed to any con- cession, with regard to the north-west territories, than it would otherwise have been; and there is reason to believe, from many circumstances, that they tended materially to produce a union of views, approaching to a league, between that power and Russia, which has proved very disadvantageous to the interests of the United States on the North Pacific coasts.
The negotiation respecting the north-west coasts of America, commenced at London in April, 1824, was not long continued ; the parties being so entirely at variance with regard to facts as well as principles, that the impossibility of effecting any new arrange- ment soon became evident. Mr. Rush,* the American plenipoten- tiary, began by claiming for the United States the exclusive pos- session and sovereignty of the whole country west of the Rocky Mountains, from the 42d degree of latitude, at least as far north as the 51st, between which parallels all the waters of the Columbia were then supposed to be included. In support of this claim, he cited, as in 1818, the facts- of the first discovery of the Columbia by Gray - of the first exploration of that river from its sources to the sea by Lewis and Clarke - of the first settlement on its banks by the Pacific Fur Company, "a settlement which was reduced by the arms of the British during the late war, but was formally sur-
* Letter from Mr. Rush to the secretary of state, of August 12th, 1824, among the documents accompanying President Adams's message to Congress of January 31st, 1826.
43
338
CLAIMS OF THE U. STATES AND OF GREAT BRITAIN. [1824.
rendered up to the United States at the return of peace," and - of the transfer by Spain to the United States of all her titles to those territories, founded upon the well-known discoveries of her navi- gators ; and he insisted, agreeably to express instructions from his government, " that no part of the American continent was thence- forth to be open to colonization from Europe." In explanation and defence of this declaration, Mr. Rush "referred to the principles settled by the Nootka Sound convention of 1790, and remarked, that Spain had now lost all her exclusive colonial rights, recognized under that convention : first, by the fact of the independence of the South American states and of Mexico; and next, by her express renunciation of all her rights, of whatever kind, above the 42d degree of north latitude, to the United States. Those new states would themselves now possess the rights incident to their condition of political independence; and the claims of the United States above the 42d parallel as high up as 60 degrees - claims as well in their own right as by succession to the title of Spain - would henceforth necessarily preclude other nations from forming colonial establishments upon any part of the American continents."
Messrs. Huskisson and Canning, in reply, denied that the circumstance of a merchant vessel of the United States having penetrated the north-west coast of America at the Columbia River, could give to the United States a claim along that coast, both north and south of the river, over territories which, they insisted, had been previously discovered by Great Britain herself, in expe- ditions fitted out under the authority and with the resources of the nation. They declared that British subjects had formed settle- ments upon the Columbia, or upon rivers flowing into it west of the Rocky Mountains, coeval with, if not prior to, the settlement made by American citizens at its mouth ; and that the surrender of that settlement after the late war was in fulfilment of the treaty of Ghent, and did not affect the question of right in any way. They treated as false or doubtful the accounts of many of the Spanish voyages in the Pacific ; alleging, as more authentic, the narrative of Drake's expedition, from which it appeared that he had, in 1579, explored the west coast of America to the 48th parallel of latitude, five or six degrees farther north than the Spaniards them- selves pretended to have advanced before that period: and they refused to admit that any title could be derived from the mere fact of Spanish navigators having first seen the coast at particular spots, even when this was capable of being fully substantiated. Finally,
339
PROPOSITIONS FOR PARTITION.
1824.]
they assured Mr. Rush that their government would never assent to the claim set forth by him respecting the territory watered by the Columbia River and its tributaries, which, besides being essentially objectionable in its general bearings, had also the effect of inter- fering directly with the actual rights of Great Britain, derived from use, occupancy, and settlement ; asserting, at the same time, that "they considered the unoccupied parts of America just as much open as heretofore to colonization by Great Britain, as well as by other European powers, agreeably to the convention of 1790, between the British and Spanish governments, and that the United States would have no right to take umbrage at the establishment of new colonies from Europe, in any such parts of the American continent." *
After much discussion on these points, Mr. Rush presented a proposal from his government, that any country west of the Rocky Mountains, which might be claimed by the United States, or by Great Britain, should be free and open to the citizens or subjects of both nations for ten years from the date of the agreement : Provided, that, during this period, no settlements were to be made by British subjects north of the 55th or south of the 51st degrees of latitude, nor by American citizens north of the latter parallel. To this proposal, which Mr. Rush afterwards varied by substituting the 49th parallel of latitude for the 51st, Messrs. Huskisson and Canning replied by a counter proposal, to the effect, that the boundary between the territories of the two nations, beyond the Rocky Mountains, should pass from those mountains westward along the 49th parallel of latitude, to the north-easternmost branch of the Columbia River, called Macgillivray's River on the maps, ยท and thence down the middle of the stream, to the Pacific; the British possessing the country north and west of such line, and the United States that which lay south and east of it: Provided, that the subjects or citizens of both nations should be equally at liberty, during the space of ten years from the date of the agreement, to pass by land or by water through all the territories on both sides of the boundary, and to retain and use their establishments already formed in any part of them. The British plenipotentiaries at the same time declared that this their proposal was one from which
* Protocol of the twelfth conference between the plenipotentiaries, held June 26th, 1824, among the documents annexed to President Adams's message to Congress of January 31st, 1826.
340
PROPOSITIONS FOR PARTITION.
[1824.
Great Britain would certainly not depart ; and, as all prospect of compromise was thus destroyed, the negotiation ended.
In this discussion between the United States and Great Britain, upon the subject of their respective claims to the sovereignty of the countries west of the Rocky Mountains, the grounds of those claims were first made to assume a form somewhat definite; and this may be considered as principally due to the labor and pene- tration of Mr. Rush, who seems to have been the first to inquire carefully into the facts of the case. The introduction by him of the Nootka convention, as an element in the controversy, was according to express instructions from his government .* It appears to have been wholly unnecessary, and was certainly impolitic. No allusion had been made to that arrangement in any of the previous discus- sions with regard to the north-west coasts, and it was doubtless considered extinct ; but when it was thus brought forward by the American government in connection with the declaration against European colonization, as a settlement of general principles with regard to those coasts, an argument was afforded in favor of the subsistence of the convention, of which the British government did not fail to take advantage, as will be hereafter shown.
* " The principles settled by the Nootka Sound convention of 28th October, 1790, were -
"' Ist. That the rights of fishing in the South Seas; of trading with the natives of the north-west coast of America; and of making settlements on the coast itself, for the purposes of that trade, north of the actual settlements of Spain, were common to all the European nations, and, of course, to the United States.
"' 2d. That, so far as the actual settlements of Spain had extended, she possessed the exclusive rights territorial, and of navigation and fishery ; extending to the dis- tance of ten miles from the coast so actually occupied.
"'3d. That, on the coasts of South America, and the adjacent islands south of the parts already occupied by Spain, no settlement should thereafter be made either by British or Spanish subjects ; but, on both sides, should be retained the liberty of land- ing and of erecting temporary building's for the purposes of the fishery. These rights werc, also, of course, enjoyed by the people of the United States.
"' The exclusive rights of Spain to any part of the American continents have ceased. That portion of the convention, therefore, which recognizes the exclusive colonial rights of Spain on these continents, though confirmed, as between Great Britain and Spain, by the first additional article to the treaty of the 5th of July, 1814, has been extinguished by the fact of the independence of the South American nations and of Mexico. Those independent nations will possess the rights incident to that condition, and their territories will, of course, be subject to no exclusive right of nav- igation in their vicinity, or of access to them, by any foreign nation.
"'A necessary consequence of this state of things will be, that the American con- tinents, henceforth, will no longer be subject to colonization. Occupied by civilized, independent nations, they will be accessible to Europeans, and each other, on that
341
1824.] CONVENTION BETWEEN THE U. STATES AND RUSSIA.
In the mean time, the negotiation between the United States and Russia was terminated by a convention, signed at St. Petersburg, on the 5th of April, 1824, containing five articles: by the first of which, it is agreed that the respective citizens or subjects of the two nations shall not be disturbed or restrained in navigating or in fishing in any part of the Pacific Ocean, or in the power of resort- ing to the coasts upon points which may not already have been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives; saving, always, the restrictions and conditions determined by the following articles, to wit: by the second article, the citizens of the United States shall not resort to any point on the north-west coasts of America, where there is a Russian establishment, without the permission of the governor or commandant of the place, and vice versa : by the third article, neither the United States nor their citizens shall, in future, form any establishment on those coasts, or the adjacent islands, north of the latitude of 54 degrees 40 minutes, and the Russians shall make none south of that latitude. " It is, nevertheless, understood," says the fourth article, " that during a term of ten years, counting from the signature of the present con- vention, the ships of both powers, or which belong to their citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without any hinderance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbors, and creeks, upon the coast mentioned in the preceding article, for the purpose
footing alone; and the Pacific Ocean, in every part of it, will remain open to the navigation of all nations, in like manner with the Atlantic.'" - Instructions of the Hon. J. Q. Adams, secretary of state of the United States, to Mr. Rush, dated July 22d, 1823, among the documents accompanying President Adams's message to Con- gress of January 31st, 1826.
With regard to the portion of these instructions here extracted, the reader is re- ferred to the convention of 1790 itself, and to the remarks on it in pp. 213, 258, and 318, of this History, from which it will be seen that the convention, in all its stipula- tions, was simply an international agreement between Spain and Great Britain, bind- ing them and their subjects only until its expiration, which took place, in consequence of the war, in 1796, and applying in no respect, either as to advantages or restrictions, to any other nation whatsoever ; and that, consequently, other nations had the same right to occupy the vacant coasts of America, and to navigate and fish in the adjacent seas, within ten leagues, (the distance defined by the convention,) and even within ten miles, of the parts occupied by Spain, after, as before, the signature of that agree- ment; and Spain had as much right, after, as before, that event, to prohibit them from so doing. If the Nootka convention were, as asserted by the secretary of state, a definitive settlement of general principles of national law respecting navigation and fishery in the seas, and trade and settlement on the coasts, here mentioned, it would be difficult to resist the pretensions of the British plenipotentiaries with regard to the territories west of the Rocky Mountains, as set forth in the statement (Proofs and Illustrations, letter H) presented by them to Mr. Gallatin in 1826.
342
TREATY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND GREAT BRITAIN. [1825.
of fishing and trading with the natives of the country : " it being, however, stipulated by the remaining fifth article, that spirituous liquors, fire-arms, other arms, powder, and munitions of war, are always excepted from this same commerce permitted by the fourth article, and that, in case of contravention of this part of the agree- ment, the nation whose citizens or subjects may have committed the delinquency, shall alone have the right to punish them .*
This convention does not appear to offer any grounds for dispute as to the construction of its stipulations, but is, on the contrary, clear and equally favorable to both nations. The rights of both parties to navigate every part of the Pacific, and to trade with the natives of any places on the coasts of that sea, not already occupied, are first distinctly acknowledged ; after which it is agreed, in order to pre- vent future difficulties, that each should submit to certain limitations as to navigation, trade, and settlement, on the north-west coasts of America, either perpetually or during a fixed period. Neither party claimed, directly or by inference, the immediate sovereignty of any spot on the American coasts not occupied by its citizens or sub- jects, or acknowledged the right of the other to the possession of any spot not so occupied ; the definitive regulation of limits being deferred until the establishments and other interests of the two nations in that quarter of the world should have acquired such a development as to render more precise stipulations necessary.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.