USA > California > The history of Oregon and California & the other territories of the northwest coast of North America > Part 38
USA > Oregon > The history of Oregon and California & the other territories of the northwest coast of North America > Part 38
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
The Russian government, however, construed this convention as giving to itself the absolute sovereignty of all the west coasts of America north of the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes, while deny- ing any such right on the part of the United States to the coasts extending southward from that line. In February, 1825, a treaty was concluded between Russia and Great Britain, relative to North- West America, containing provisions similar to those of the con- vention between Russia and the United States, expressed in nearly the same words, but also containing many other provisions, some of which are directly at variance with the evident sense of the last- mentioned agreement. Thus it is established, by the treaty, that " the line of demarkation between the possessions of the high contract- ing parties upon the coast of the continent, and the islands of America to the north-west," shall be drawn from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales's Island, in latitude of 54 degrees 40
* This convention will be found at length among the Proofs and Illustrations, in the concluding part of this volume, under the letter K, No. 4.
343
TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.
1825.]
minutes eastward, to the great inlet in the continent, called Port- land Channel, and along the middle of that inlet, to the 56th degree of latitude, whence it shall follow the summit of the moun- tains bordering the coast, within ten leagues, north-westward, to Mount St. Elias, and thence north, in the course of the 141st meridian west from Greenwich, to the Frozen Ocean ; "which line," says the treaty, " shall form the limit between the Russian and the British possessions in the continent of America to the north- west ; " it being also agreed that the British should forever have the right to navigate any streams flowing into the Pacific from the interior, across the line of demarkation .*
That this treaty virtually annulled the convention, of the pre- ceding year, between Russia and the United States, is evident ; for the convention rested entirely upon the assumption that the United States possessed the same right to the part of the American coast south of the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes, which Russia pos- sessed to the part north of that parallel : and the treaty distinctly ac- knowledged the former or southern division of the coast to be the property of Great Britain. It does not, however, appear that any representation on the subject was addressed by the American gov- ernment to that of Russia; and the vessels of the United States continued to frequent all the unoccupied parts of the north-west coast, and to trade with the natives uninterruptedly, until 1834, when, as will be hereafter shown, they were formally prohibited, by the Russian authorities, from visiting any place on that coast north of the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes, on the ground that their right to do so had expired, agreeably to the convention of 1824.
In December, 1824, President Monroe, in his last annual mes- sage to Congress, recommended the establishment of a military post at the mouth of the Columbia, or at some other point within the acknowledged limits of the United States, in order to afford pro- tection to their commerce and fisheries in the Pacific, to conciliate the Indians of the north-west, and to promote the intercourse be-
See Proofs and Illustrations, at the end of this volume, under the letter K, No. 5. Some curious particulars relative to the negotiation which led to this treaty may be found in the Political Life of the Hon. George Canning, by A. G. Stapleton, chap. xiv. Mr. Canning, it seems, was anxious for the conclusion of a joint convention between Great Britain, the United States, and Russia, as regards the freedom of navigation of the Pacific, until the appearance of the declaration in the message of President Monroe above mentioned, after which he determined only to treat with each of the other parties separately.
344
MOVEMENTS IN CONGRESS.
[1824.
tween those territories and the settled portions of the republic ; to effect which object, he advised that appropriations should be made for the despatch of a frigate, with engineers, to explore the mouth of the Columbia and the adjacent shores. The same measures were, in the following year, also recommended by Presi- dent Adams, among the various plans for the advantage of the United States and of the world in general, to which he requested the attention of Congress, in his message, at the commencement of the session. In compliance with this recommendation, a com- mittee was appointed by the House of Representatives, the chairman of which, Mr. Baylies, of Massachusetts,-presented two reports,* containing numerous details with respect to - the history of discove- ry and trade in North-West America, - the geography, soil, climate, productions, and inhabitants, of the portion claimed by the United States, - the number and value of the furs procured there, - the expenses of surveying the coasts and of forming military establish- ments for its occupation, and many other matters relating to that part of the world; in consideration whereof, the committee intro- duced a bill for the immediate execution of the measures proposed by the president. This bill was laid on the table of the House, and the subject was not again agitated in Congress until 1828.
Meanwhile, the period of ten years, during which the countries claimed by the United States or by Great Britain, west of the Rocky Mountains, were, agreeably to the convention of 1818, to remain free and open to the citizens or subjects of both nations, was draw- ing to a close ; and a strong desire was manifested, on the part of the American government, that some definitive arrangement with regard to those countries should be concluded between the two powers, before the expiration of the term. The British secretary for foreign affairs also signified that his government was prepared to enter into a new discussion of the question at issue ; and a nego- tiation with these objects was accordingly commenced between Mr. Gallatin, the minister plenipotentiary of the United States at London, and Messrs. Addington and Huskisson, commissioners on the part of Great Britain.
Before relating the particulars of this negotiation, it should be observed that the relative positions of the two parties, as to the occupancy and actual possession of the countries in question, had been materially changed since the conclusion of the former conven-
* Dated severally January 16th, and May 15th, 1826.
345
BRITISH IN QUIET POSSESSION OF THE COLUMBIA.
1826.]
tion between them. The union of the rival British companies, and the extension of the jurisdiction of the courts of Upper Canada over the territories west of the Rocky Mountains, had already proved most advantageous to the Hudson's Bay Company, which had at the same time received the privilege of trading in that territory, to the exclusion of all other British subjects. Great efforts were made, and vast expenses were incurred, by this company, in its efforts to found settlements on the Columbia River, and to acquire influence over the natives of the surrounding country ; and so successful had been those efforts, that the citizens of the United States were obliged, not only to renounce all ideas of renewing their estab- lishments in that part of America, but even to withdraw their vessels from its coasts. Indeed, for more than ten years after the capture of Astoria by the British, scarcely a single American citizen was to be seen in those countries. Trading expeditions were sub- sequently made from Missouri to the head-waters of the Platte and the Colorado, within the limits of California, and one or two hundred hunters and trappers, from the United States, were gen- erally roving through that region; but the Americans had no settlements of any kind, and their government exercised no juris- diction whatsoever west of the Rocky Mountains.
Under such favorable circumstances, the Hudson's Bay Company could not fail to prosper. Its resources were no longer wasted in disputes with rivals ; its operations were conducted with despatch and certainty ; its posts were extended, and its means of communi- cation increased, under the assurance that the honor of the British government and nation was thereby more strongly interested in its behalf. The agents of the company were seen in every part of the continent, north and north-west of the United States and Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, hunting, trapping, and trading with the aborigines ; its boats were met on every stream and lake, conveying British goods into the interior, or furs to the great deposi- tories on each ocean, for shipment to England in British vessels ; and the utmost order and regularity were maintained throughout by the supremacy of British laws. Of the trading posts, many were fortified, and could be defended by their inmates - men inured to hardships and dangers -against all attacks which might be appre- hended ; and the whole vast expanse of territory above described, including the regions drained by the Columbia, was, in fact, occu- pied by British forces, and governed by British laws, though there 44
346
NEGOTIATION AT LONDON.
[1826.
was not a single British soldier -technically speaking - within its limits.
Considering this state of things, and also the characters of the two nations engaged in the controversy and of their governments, it may readily be supposed that many and great obstacles would exist in the way of a definitive and amicable arrangement of the questions at issue, between the Americans ever solicitous with respect to territory which they have any reason to regard as their own, and the British with whom the acquisition and security of commercial advantages always form a paramount object of policy. To the difficulties occasioned by the conflict of such material interests, in this particular case, were added those arising from the pride of the parties, and their mutual jealousy, which seems ever to render them adverse to any settlement of a disputed point, even though it should be manifestly advantageous to them both.
In the first conference,* the British commissioners declared that their government was still ready to abide by the proposition made to Mr. Rush, in 1824, for a line of separation between the territories of the two nations, drawn from the Rocky Mountains, along the 49th parallel of latitude to the north-easternmost branch of the Columbia, and thence down that river to the sea; giving to Great Britain all the territories north, and to the United States all south, of that line. Mr. Gallatin, in reply, agreeably to instructions from his government, repeated the offer made by himself and Mr. Rush, in 1818, for the adoption of the 49th parallel as the line of separa- tion from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, with the additional provisions, - that, if the said line should cross any of the branches of the Columbia at points from which they are navigable by boats to the main stream, the navigation of such branches, and of the main stream, should be perpetually free and common to the people of both nations-that the citizens or subjects of neither party should thenceforward make any settlements in the territories of the other ; but that all settlements already formed by the people of either nation within the limits of the other, might be occupied and used by them for ten years, and no longer, during which all the remaining provisions of the existing convention should continue in force. The British refused to accede to this or any other plan of partition which should deprive them of the northern bank of the
* President Adams's message to Congress of December 28th, 1827, and the ac- companying documents.
347
NEGOTIATION SUSPENDED.
1826.]
Columbia, and the right of navigating that river to and from the sea ; though they expressed their willingness to yield to the United States, in addition to what they first offered, a detached territory, extending, on the Pacific and the Strait of Fuca, from Bulfinch's Harbor to Hood's Canal, and to stipulate that no works should at any time be erected at the mouth or on the banks of the Columbia, calculated to impede the free navigation of that river, by either party. The Americans, however, being equally determined not to give up their title to any part of the country south of the 49th par- allel, all expectation of effecting a definitive disposition of the claims was abandoned.
The plenipotentiaries then directed their attention to the sub- ject of a renewal of the arrangement for the use and occupancy of the territories in question by the people of both nations. With this view, the British proposed that the existing arrangement should be renewed according to the terms of the third article of the convention of October 20th, 1818, for fifteen years from the date of the expiration of that convention; with the addi- tional provisions, however, that, during those fifteen years, neither power should assume or exercise any right of exclusive sovereignty or dominion over any part of the territory ; and that no settlement then made, or which might thereafter be made, by either nation in those countries, should ever be adduced in support of any claim to such sovereignty or dominion. This proposition was re- ceived by Mr. Gallatin for reference to his government, although he saw at once that the additional provisions were inadmissible ; and the negotiation was, in consequence, suspended for some months.
During this first period of the negotiation, the claims and pre- tensions of the two nations respecting the countries in question, were developed and discussed more fully than on any previous occasion, not only in the conferences between the plenipotentiaries, but also in written statements,* formally presented on each side. As nearly
* The statement of the British commissioners is presented entire in the Proofs and Illustrations, under the letter H, in order that no doubt may subsist as to the nature of the claims of Great Britain, and of the evidence and arguments by which they are supported. As a state paper, it will, perhaps, be found unworthy of the nation on whose part it was produced, and of at least one of the persons from whom it pro- ceeded ; many will regret to see appended to it the name of William Huskisson, and to learn that it received the approval of George Canning.
The counter-statement of Mr. Gallatin, a most able document, is omitted only be- cause its insertion would have too much increased the bulk of the volume.
348
CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES.
[1826.
every point touched by either of the parties has been already ex- amined minutely in the foregoing pages, it only remains now to recapitulate them, and to add some remarks, which could not have been conveniently introduced at an earlier period.
Mr. Gallatin claimed for the United States the possession of the territory west of the Rocky Mountains, between the 42d and the 49th parallels of latitude, on the grounds of -
The acquisition by the United States of the titles of France through the Louisiana treaty, and the titles of Spain through the Florida treaty ;
The discovery of the mouth of the Columbia, the first explora- tion of the countries through which that river flows, and the estab- lishment of the first posts and settlements in those countries by American citizens ;
The virtual recognition of the title of the United States, by the British government, in the restitution, agreeably to the first article of the treaty of Ghent, of the post near the mouth of the Columbia, which had been taken during the war ;
And, lastly, upon the ground of contiguity, which should give the United States a stronger right to those territories than could be advanced by any other power - a doctrine always maintained by Great Britain, from the period of her earliest attempts at coloniza- tion in America, as clearly proved by her charters, in which the whole breadth of the continent, between certain parallels of lati- tude, was granted to colonies established only at points on the borders of the Atlantic .*
Messrs. Huskisson and Addington, on the other hand, declared that Great Britain claims no exclusive sovereignty over any portion of the territory on the Pacific between the 42d and the 49th paral- lels of latitude ; her present claim, not in respect to any part, but to the whole, being limited to a right of joint occupancy, in com- mon with other states, leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abeyance. They then proceeded to examine the grounds of the claims of the United States, none of which they admitted to bo
* " If," says Mr. Gallatin, " some trading factories on the shores of Hudson's Bay have been considered by Great Britain as giving an exclusive right of occupancy as far as the Rocky Mountains; if the infant settlements on the more southern Atlantic shores justified a claim thence to the South Seas, and which was actually enforced to the Mississippi, - that of the millions already within reach of those seas cannot con- sistently be rejected." This argument, it may be added, has been since constantly increasing in force.
349
CLAIMS OF GREAT BRITAIN.
1826.]
valid, except that acquired from Spain, through the Florida treaty, in 1819; and the right thus acquired they pronounced to be nothing more than the right secured to Spain, in common with Great Brit- ain, by the Nootka convention, in 1790, to trade and settle in any part of those countries, and to navigate their waters. Dismissing the claims of Spain, on the grounds of discovery, prior to 1790, as futile and visionary, and inferior to those of Great Britain on the same grounds, they maintained that all arguments and pretensions of either of those powers, whether resting on discovery or on any other consideration, were definitively set at rest by the Nootka convention, after the signature of which, the title was no longer to be traced in vague discoveries, several of them admitted to be apocryphal, but in the text and stipulations of that convention itself ; and that, as the Nootka convention applied to all parts of the north-west coast of America not occupied, in 1790, by either of the parties, it of course included any portion of Louisiana which might then have extended, on the Pacific, north of the northern- most Spanish settlement, and which could not, therefore, be claimed by the United States, in virtue of the treaty for the cession of Lou- isiana to that republic, in 1803.
Having assumed this ground, it was scarcely necessary for the British plenipotentiaries to go further into the examination of the titles of the United States ; and they probably acted on this suppo- sition, as it is otherwise impossible to account for the gross mis- statements with regard to the discoveries of the Americans, the extravagant and unfounded assumptions, and the illogical deduc- tions, in the document presented by them to Mr. Gallatin, on the part of their government. Thus, with regard to the discovery of the mouth of the Columbia, they insisted that " Mr. Meares, a lieu- tenant in the royal navy, who had been sent by the East India Company on a trading expedition to the north-west coasts of America," really effected that discovery four years before Gray is even pretended to have entered the river ;* though they indeed admitted that " Mr. Gray, finding himself in the bay formed by the discharge of the waters of the Columbia into the Pacific, was the first to ascertain that this bay formed the outlet of a great river, a discovery which had escaped Lieutenant Meares" when he entered the same bay ; but that, even supposing the priority of Gray's dis- covery to be proved, it was of no consequence in the case, as the
* See p. 177.
350
CLAIMS OF GREAT BRITAIN.
[1826.
country in which it was made " falls within the provisions of the convention of 1790." They refused to allow that the claims of the United States are strengthened by the exploration of the country through which the Columbia flows, as performed in 1805-6 by Lewis and Clarke, " because, if not before, at least in the same and subsequent years," the agents of the North-West Company had established posts on the northern branch of the river, and were extending them down to its mouth, when they heard of the forma- tion of the American post at that place in 1811 .* That the restora- tion of Astoria, in 1818, conveyed a virtual acknowledgment by Great Britain of the title of the United States to the country in which that post is situated, was also denied, on the ground that letters protesting against such title were, at the time of the restora- tion, addressed, by members of the British ministry, to British agents in the United States and on the Columbia.t It is needless to add any thing to what has been already said on these points, in order to prove the entire groundlessness of the assertions contained in the British statement with regard to them.
The charters granted by the sovereigns of Great Britain and France, conveying to individuals or companies large tracts of terri- tory in America, were represented, by the British plenipotentiaries, as being nothing "more, in fact, than a cession to the grantee or grantees of whatever rights the grantor might suppose himself to possess, to the exclusion of other subjects of the same nation, - binding and restraining those only who were within the jurisdic- tion of the grantor, and of no force or validity against the subjects of other states, until recognized by treaty, and thereby becoming a part of international law." The erroneousness of these views is obvious, and was easily demonstrated by Mr. Gallatin, who showed, by reference to the history of British colonization and dominion in America, that the royal grantors of territories in that continent did consider their charters as binding on all, whether their own subjects or not, and with regard to countries first discovered and settled by people of other nations, whenever they were found to be within the limits thus indicated. These facts were cited, not in vindication of the justice of those grants, but merely to prove in what light they had been regarded by Great Britain : and, if the principle thus assumed by that power, and maintained from 1580 to 1782, as relating to Atlantic colonies, were correct, she could not
* See p. 297. t See p. 310.
351
DETERMINATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN.
1826.]
deny its application to the United States, now the owners of Lou- isiana .*
The British plenipotentiaries were, however, clear and explicit as to the intentions of their government, which were declared, at the conclusion of their statement, in terms of moderation and forbear- ance truly edifying. Great Britain, they assert, claims, at present, nothing more than the rights of trade, navigation, and settlement, in the part of the world under consideration, agreeably to the pro- visions of the Nootka convention, the basis of the law of nations with regard to those territories and waters, under the protection of which many important British interests have grown up; and she admits that the United States have the same rights, but none other, although they have been exercised only in one instance, and not at all since 1813. In the territory between the 42d and the 49th parallels of latitude, are many British posts and settlements, for the trade and supply of which, the free navigation of the Columbia, to and from the sea, is indispensable; the United States possess not a single post or settlement of any kind in that whole region. Great Britain, nevertheless, for the sake of peace and good under- standing, agrees to submit to a definitive partition of that territory, giving to the United States the whole division south of the Co- lumbia, and a large tract containing an excellent harbor, north of that river ; and, the United States having declined to accede to this proposition, it only remains for Great Britain to maintain and up-
* " This construction does not appear either to have been that intended at the time by the grantors, or to have governed the subsequent conduct of Great Britain. By excepting from the grants, as was generally the case, such lands as were already oc- cupied by the subjects of other civilized nations, it was clearly implied that no other exception was contemplated, and that the grants were intended to include all unoccu- pied lands within their respective boundaries, to the exclusion of all other persons or nations whatsoever. In point of fact, the whole country drained by the several rivers emptying into the Atlantic Ocean, the mouths of which were within those charters, has, from Hudson's Bay to Florida, and, it is believed, without exception, been occu- pied and held by virtue of those charters. Not only has this principle been fully confirmed, but it has been notoriously enforced much beyond the sources of the rivers on which the settlements were formed. The priority of the French settlements on the rivers flowing westwardly from the Alleghany Mountains into the Mississippi was altogether disregarded ; and the rights of the Atlantic colonies to extend beyond those mountains, as growing out of the contiguity of territory, and as asserted in the earliest charters, was effectually and successfully enforced."
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.