An illustrated history of Skagit and Snohomish Counties; their people, their commerce and their resources, with an outline of the early history of the state of Washington, Part 11

Author: Inter-state Publishing Company (Chicago, Ill.)
Publication date: 1906
Publisher: [Chicago] Interstate Publishing Company
Number of Pages: 1172

USA > Washington > Skagit County > An illustrated history of Skagit and Snohomish Counties; their people, their commerce and their resources, with an outline of the early history of the state of Washington > Part 11
USA > Washington > Snohomish County > An illustrated history of Skagit and Snohomish Counties; their people, their commerce and their resources, with an outline of the early history of the state of Washington > Part 11

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).

"'Resolved, That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of taking measures for the civil and military protection of this colony.

"'Resolved, That said committee consist of twelve persons.'

If an oratorical effort is to be judged by the effect produced upon the audience, this one deserves place among the world's masterpieces. The reso- lutions carried unanimously. The committee appointed consisted of 1. L. Babcock, Elijah White, James A. O'Neil, Robert Shortess, Robert Newell, Etienne Lucier, Joseph Gervais, Thomas Hubbard, C. McRoy. W. H. Gray, Sidney Smith and George Gay. Its first meeting was held before a month had elapsed, the place being Willamette Falls. Jason Lee and George Abernethy appeared and argued vehemently against the movement as premature. When the office of governor was stricken from the list, the committee unanimously decided to call another meeting for the ensuing 2d of May. W. H.

Gray, in his history of Oregon, describes this de- cisive occasion thus :

"The d of May, the day fixed by the committee of twelve to organize a settlers' government, was close at hand. The Indians had all learned that the "Bostons' were going to have a big meeting, and they also knew that the English and French were going to meet with them to oppose what the .Bos- tons' were going to do. The Hudson's Bay Con- pany had drilled and trained their voters for the occasion, under the Rev. F. N. Blanchet and his priests, and they were promptly on the ground in an open field near a small house, and, to the amuse- ment of every American present, trained to vote 'No' to every motion put : no matter if to carry their point they should have voted 'Yes,' it was 'No.' Le Breton had informed the committee, and the Americans generally, that this would be the course pursued, according to instructions, hence our mo- tions were made to test their knowledge of what they were doing, and we found just what we ex- pected was the case. The priest was not prepared for our manner of meeting him, and, as the record shows, 'considerable confusion was existing in consequence.' By this time we had counted votes. Says Le Breton, 'We can risk it; let us divide and count.' 'I second the motion,' says Gray. . Who's for a divide?' sang out old Joe Meek, as he stepped out. 'All for the report of the committee and an organization, follow me.' This was so sudden and unexpected that the priest and his voters did not know what to do, but every American was soon in line. Le Breton and Gray passed the line and counted fifty-two Americans and but fifty French and Hudson's Bay men. They announced the count -'Fifty-two for and fifty against.' 'Three cheers for our side!' sang out old Joe Meek. Not one of those old veteran mountain voices was lacking in that shout for liberty. They were given with a will and in a few seconds the chairman, Judge I. L. Babcock, called the meeting to order, and the priest and his band shink away into the corners of the fences and in a short time mounted their horses and left."

After the withdrawal of the opponents of this measure, the meeting became harmonious, of course. Its minutes show that A. E. Wilson was chosen supreme judge ; G. W. Le Breton, clerk of the court and recorder; J. L. Mcek, sheriff; W. H. Willson, treasurer : Messrs. Hill, Shortess, Newell, Beers, Hubbard, Gray, O'Neil, Moore and Dough- erty, legislative committee ; and that constables, a major and captains were also chosen. The salary of the legislative committee was fixed at $1.25 per diem each member, and it was instructed to prepare a code of laws to be submitted to the people at Champoeg on the 5th day of July.

On the day preceding this date, the anniversary of America's birth was duly celebrated, Rev. Gus- tavus Hines delivering the oration. Quite a number

INTRODUCTORY

who had opposed organization at the previous meet- ing were present on the 5th and announced their determination to acquiesce in the action of the majority and to yield obedience to any government which might be formed, but representatives of the Hudson's Bay Company even went so far in their opposition as to address a letter to the leaders of the movement asserting their ability to defend both themselves and their political rights.

A review of the "Organic laws" adopted at this meeting would be interesting, but such is beyond the scope of our volume. Suffice it to say that they were so liberal and just, so complete and comprehensive, that it has been a source of surprise to students ever since that untrained mountaineers and settlers, without experience in legislative halls, could con- ceive a system so well adapted to the. needs and conditions of the country. The preamble runs : "We, the people of Oregon territory, for the pur- poses of mutual protection, and to secure peace and prosperity among ourselves, agree to adopt the fol- lowing laws and regulations until such time as the United States of America extend their jurisdiction over us." The two weaknesses, which were soonest felt, were the result of the opposition to the creation of the office of governor and to the levying of taxes. The former difficulty was overcome by substituting, in 1844, a gubernatorial executive for the triumvi- rate which had theretofore discharged the executive

functions, and the latter by raising the necessary funds by popular subscription. In 1844, also, a legislature was substituted for the legislative com- mittee.

Inasmuch as the first election resulted favorably to some who owed allegiance to the British govern- ment as well as to others who were citizens of the United States, the oath of office was indited as follows: "1 do solemnly swear that I will support the organic laws of the provisional government of Oregon, so far as the said organic laws are con- sistent with my duties as a citizen of the United States, or a subject of Great Britain, and faithfully demean myself in office. So help me God."

Notwithstanding the opposition to the pro- visional government, the diverse peoples over whom it exercised authority, and the weaknesses in it resulting from the spirit of compromise of its authors, it continued to exist and discharge all the necessary functions of sovereignty until, on Au- gust 14, 1848, in answer to the numerous memorials and petitions, and the urgent appeals of Messrs. Thornton and Meek, congress at last decided to give to Oregon a territorial form of government with all the rights and privileges usually accorded to territories of the United States. Joseph Lane, of Indiana, whose subsequent career presents so many brilliant and so many sad chapters, was appointed territorial governor.

CHAPTER VI

THE OREGON CONTROVERSY

The reader is now in possession of such facts as will enable him to approach intelligently the contemplation of the great diplomatic war of the century, the Oregon controversy. It may be safely asserted that never before in the history of nations did diplomacy triumph over such wide differences of opinion and sentiment and effect a peaceable adjustment of such divergent international interests. Twice actual conflict of arms seemed imminent, but the spirit of compromise and mutual forbear- ance ultimately won, a fact which shows that the leaven of civilization was working on both sides of the Atlantic, and gives reason to hope that the day when the swords of the nations shall be beaten into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks may not be as far in the future as some suppose.

We need not attempt to trace all the conflicting claims which were at any time set up by different nations to parts or the whole of the old Oregon territory, nor to go into the controversy in all its multiform complications, but will confine our inquiry mainly to the negotiations after Great Britain and the United States became the sole claimants. France early established some right to what was denom- inated "the western part of Louisiana," which, in 1162, she conveyed to Spain. This was retroceded to France some thirty-eight years later, and in 1803 was by that nation conveyed with the rest of Louisiana to the United States. So France was left out of the contest. In 1819, by the treaty of Florida, Spain ceded to the United States all right and title whatsoever which she might have to the terri-

THE OREGON CONTROVERSY

tory on the Pacific, north of the forty-second parallel.

What then were the claims of the United States to this vast domain? Naturally, they were of a three-fold character. Our government claimed first in its own right. The Columbia river was discovered by a citizen of the United States and named by him. The river had been subsequently explored from its sources to its mouth by a government expedition under Lewis and Clark. This had been followed and its effects strengthened by American settlements upon the banks of the river. While Astoria, the American settlement, had been captured in the war of 1812-15, it had been restored in accordance with the treaty of Ghent, one provision of which was that "all territory, places and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored without delay."

It was a well established and universally recog- nized principle of international law that the dis- covery of a river followed within a reasonable time by acts of occupancy, conveyed the right to the territory drained by the river and its tributary streams. This, it was contended, would make the territory between forty-two degrees and fifty-one degrees north latitude the rightful possession of the United States.

The Americans claimed secondly as the suc- cessors of France. By the treaty of Utrecht, the date whereof was 1:13, the north line of the Louisiana territory was established as a dividing line between the Hudson's bay territory and the French provinces in Canada. For centuries it had been a recognized principle of international law that "continuity" was a strong element of territorial claim. All European powers, when colonizing the Atlantic seaboard, construed their colonial grants to extend, whether expressly so stated or otherwise, entirely across the continent to the Pacific ocean, and most of these grants conveyed in express terms a strip of territory bounded north and south by stated parallels of latitude, and cast and west by the oceans. Great Britain herself had stoutly maintained this principle, even going so far as to wage with France for its integrity the war which was ended by the treaty of 1:63. By that England acquired Can- ada and renounced to France all territory west of the Mississippi river. It was therefore contended on the part of the United States that England's claim by continuity passed to France and from France by assignment to this nation. This claim, of course, was subject to any rights which might prove to belong to Spain.

Thirdly, the United States claimed as the suc- cessor of Spain all the rights which that nation might have acquired by prior discovery or other- wise having accrued to the United States by the treaty of Florida.

In the negotiations between Great Britain and

the United States which terminated in the Joint- Occupancy treaty of 1818, the latter nation pressed the former for a final quit-claim to all territory west of the Rocky mountains. In so doing it asserted its intention "to be without reference or prejudice to the claims of any other power," but it was contended on the part of the American nego- tiators, Gallatin and Rush, that the discovery of the Columbia by Gray, its exploration by Lewis and Clark, and the American settlement at Astoria, rendered the claim of the United States "at least good against Great Britain to the country through which such river flowed, though they did not assert that the United States had a perfect right to the country."

When, however, the United States succeeded to Spain, it was thought that all clouds upon its title were completely dispelled, and thereafter it was the contention of this government that its right to sole occupancy was perfect and indisputable. Great Britain, however, did not claim that her title amounted to one of sovereignty or exclusive pos- session, but simply that it was at least as good as any other. Her theory was that she had a right of occupancy in conjunction with other claimants, which by settlement and otherwise might be so strengthened in a part or the whole of the territory as ultimately to secure for her the right to be clothed with sovereignty.

In the discussion of the issue, the earliest explo- rations had to be largely left out of the case, as they were attended with too much vagueness and un- certainty to bear any great weight. The second epoch of exploration was, therefore, lifted to a position of prominence it could not otherwise have enjoyed. Perez and Heceta, for the Spaniards, the former in 1114, the latter a year later, had explored the northwest coast to the fifty-fifth parallel and beyond, Heceta discovering the mouth of the Col- umbia river. To offset whatever rights might accrue from these explorations, England had only the more thorough but less extensive survey of Captain James Cook, made in 1:28. The advantage in point of prior discovery would, therefore, seem to be with the United States as assignee of Spain.

After the Joint-Occupancy treaty in 1818 had been signed, negotiations on the subject were not reopened until 1824. In that year, obedient to the masterly instructions addressed to him on July 22, 1823, by John Quincy Adams, secretary of state, Richard Rush, minister to England, entered into negotiations with the British ministers, Canning and Huskisson. for the adjustment of the boundary. Mr. Rush was instructed to offer the forty-ninth parallel to the sea, "should it be earnestly insisted upon by Great Britain." He endeavored with great persistency to fulfill his mission, but his propositions were rejected. The British negotiators offered the forty-ninth parallel to the Columbia, then the middle of that river to the sea, with perpetual right to both

INTRODUCTORY

nations of navigating the harbor at the mouth of the river. This proposal Mr. Rush rejected, so nothing was accomplished. By treaty concluded in February, 1825, an agreement was entered into between Great Britain and Russia, whereby the line of fifty-four degrees, forty minutes, was fixed as the boundary between the territorial claims of the two nations, a fact which explains the cry of "Fifty- four, forty or fight" that in later days became the slogan of the Democratic party.

In 1826-7 another attempt was made to settle the question at issue between Great Britain and the United States. Albert Gallatin then represented this country, receiving his instructions from Henry Clay, secretary of state, who said: "It is not thought necessary to add much to the argument advanced on this point in the instructions given to Mr. Rush and that which was employed by him in the course of the negotiations to support our title as derived from prior discovery and settlement at the mouth of the Columbia river, and from the treaty which Spain concluded on the 22d of Feb- ruary, 1819. That argument is believed to have conclusively established our title on both grounds. Nor is it conceived that Great Britain has or can make out even a colorless title to any portion of the northern coast." Referring to the offer of the forty- ninth parallel in a despatch dated February 24. 1821. Mr. Clay said : "It is conceived in a genuine spirit of concession and conciliation, and it is our ulti- matum and you may so announce it." In order to save the case of his country from being prejudiced in future negotiations by the liberality of offers made and rejected, Mr. Clay instructed Gallatin to declare "that the American government does not hold itself bound hereafter, in consequence of any proposal which it has heretofore made, to agree to a line which has been so proposed and rejected, but will consider itself at liberty to contend for the full measure of our just claims ; which declaration you must have recorded in the protocol of one of your conferences ; and to give it more weight, have it stated that it has been done by the express direction of the president."

Mr. Gallatin sustained the claim of the United States in this negotiation so powerfully that the British plenipotentiaries, Huskisson, Grant and Addington, were forced to the position that Great Britain did not assert any title to the country. They contented themselves with the contention that her claim was sufficiently well founded to give her the right to occupy the country in common with other nations, such concessions having been made to her by the Nootka treaty. The British negotiators com- plained of the recommendation of President Monroe in his message of December :, 1824, to establish a military post at the mouth of the Columbia river, and of the passage of a bill in the house providing for the occupancy of the Oregon river. To this the American replied by calling attention to the act of

the British parliament of 1821, entitled "An act for regulating the fur trade and establishing a criminal and civil jurisdiction in certain parts of North America." He contended with great ability and force that the recommendation and bill complained of did not interfere with the treaty of 1818 and that neither a territorial government nor a fort at the month of the river could be rightly complained of by a government which had granted such wide privileges and comprehensive powers to the Hud- son's Bay Company.

Before the conclusion of these negotiations. Mr. Gallatin had offered not alone the forty-ninth par- . allel, but that "the navigation of the Columbia river shall be perpetually free to subjects of Great Britain in common with citizens of the United States, provided that the said line should strike the north- easternmost or any other branch of that river at a point at which it was navigable for boats." The British, on their part, again offered the Columbia river, together with a large tract of land between Admiralty inlet and the coast, protesting that this concession was made in the spirit of sacrifice for conciliation and not as one of right. The proposition was rejected and the negotiations ended in the treaty of August 6, 1821, which continued the Joint- Occupancy treaty of 1818 indefinitely, with the pro- viso that it might be abrogated by either party on giving the other a year's notice.

"There can be no doubt." says Evans, "that, during the continuance of these two treaties. British foothold was strengthened and the difficulty of the adjustment of boundaries materially enhanced. Nor does this reflect in the slightest degree upon those great publicists who managed the claim of the United States in those negotiations. Matchless ability and earnest patriotism, firm defense of the United States' claim, and withal a disposition to compromise to avoid rupture with any other nation, mark these negotiations in every line. The language and intention of these treaties are clear and unmis- takable. Neither government was to attempt any act in derogation of the other's claim ; nor could any advantage inure to either ; during their continuance the territory should be free and open to citizens and subjects of both nations. Such is their plain purport ; such the only construction which their language will warrant. Yet it cannot be controverted that the United States had thereby precluded itself from the sole enjoyment of the territory which it claimed in sovereignty ; nor that Great Britain acquired a peaceable, recognized and uninterrupted tenancy-in- common in regions where her title was so imperfect that she herself admitted that she could not success- fully maintain, nor did she even assert it. She could well afford to wait. Hers was indeed the policy later in the controversy styled masterly inactivity : 'Leave the title in abeyance, the settlement of the country will ultimately settle the sovereignty.' In no event could her colorless title lose color ; while

THE OREGON CONTROVERSY

an immediate adjustment of the boundary would have abridged the area of territory in which, through her subjects, she already exercised exclusive posses- sion, and had secured the entire enjoyment of its wealth and resources. The Hudson's Bay Company. by virtue of its license of trade excluding all other British subjects from the territory, was Great Britain's trustee in possession-an empire company, omnipotent to supplant enterprises projected by citizens of the United States. Indeed. the territory had been appropriated by a wealthy, all-powerful monopoly, with whom it was ruinous to attempt to compete. Such is a true exhibit of the then con- dition of Oregon, produced by causes extrinsic to the treaty, which the United States government could neither counteract nor avoid. The United States had saved the right for its citizens to enter the territory, had protested likewise that no act or omission on the part of the government or its citizens, or any act of commission or omission by the British government or her subjects during such Joint-Occupancy treaties, should affect in any way the United States' claim to the territory.

"The treaties of 1818 and 1821 have passed into history as conventions for joint occupancy. Prac- tically they operated as grants of possession to Great Britain, or rather to her representative, the Hudson's Bay Company, who, after the merger with the Northwest Company, had become sole occupant of the territory. The situation may be briefly summed up : The United States claimed title to the territory. Great Britain, through its empire-trading company, occupied it-enjoyed all the wealth and resources derivable from it."

But while joint occupation was in reality non- occupation by any but the British, it must not be supposed that the case of the United States was allowed to go entirely by default during the regime of the so-called joint occupancy. In congress the advisability of occupying Oregon was frequently and vehemently discussed. Ignorance and miscon- ception with regard to the real nature of Oregon, its climate, soil, products and healthfulness, were being dispelled. The representations of the Hud- son's Bay Company that it was a "miasmatic wilder- ness, uninhabitable except by wild beasts and more savage men," were being found to be false. In 1821 Dr. John Floyd, a representative in congress from Virginia, and Senator Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri, had interviews at Washington with Ramsey Crooks and Russell Farnham, who had belonged to Astor's party. From these gentlemen they learned something of the value of Oregon, its features of interest, and its commercial and strategic importance. This information Dr. Floyd made public in 1822, in a speech in support of a bill "to authorize the occupation of the Columbia river, and to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians therein." On December 29. 1823, a committee was

appointed to inquire as to the wisdom of occupying the mouth of the Columbia, and the committee's report, submitted on April 15th of the following year, embodied a communication from General Thomas S. Jesup, which asserted that the military occupancy of the Columbia was a necessity for pro- tecting trade and securing the frontier. It recom- mended the despatch of a force of two hundred men across the continent to establish a fort at the mouth of the Columbia river ; that at the same time two vessels with arms, ordnance and supplies be sent thither by sea. He further proposed the estab- lishment of a line of posts across the continent to afford protection to our traders ; and on the expir- ation of the privilege granted to British subjects to trade on the waters of the Columbia, to enable us to remove them from our territory, and secure the whole to our citizens. Those posts would also assure the preservation of peace among the Indians in the event of a foreign war and command their neutrality or assistance as we might think advisable. The letter exposed Great Britain's reasons for her policy of masterly inactivity, and urged that some action be taken by the United States to balance or offset the accretion of British title and for preserving and protecting its own. "History," says Evans, "will generously award credit to the sagacious Jesup for indicating in 1823 the unerring way to preserve the American title to Oregon territory. Nor will it fail to commend the earnest devotion of that little Oregon party in congress for placing on record why the government should assert exclusive jurisdiction within its own territory." In the next congress the subject was again discussed with energy and ability. In 1831 formal negotiations with Great Britain were resumed.

All this discussion had a tendency to dispel the idea, promulgated as we have seen by the Hudson's Bay Company, that the territory was worthless and uninhabitable, also to excite interest in the mystic region beyond the mountains.

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.

An illustrated history of Skagit and Snohomish Counties; their people, their commerce and their resources, with an outline of the early history of the state of Washington, Part 11

Author: Inter-state Publishing Company (Chicago, Ill.) Publication date: 1906 Publisher: [Chicago] Interstate Publishing Company Number of Pages: 1172

Author: Inter-state Publishing Company (Chicago, Ill.)
Publication date: 1906
Publisher: [Chicago] Interstate Publishing Company
Number of Pages: 1172