THE OREGON is a tract of country on the western side of the new world, principally watered by the river Oregon, or Columbia, and its tributaries. It extends from 42 degrees of north latitude, to 54 degrees and 40 minutes, and from the Pacific eastward, five or six hundred miles, to the ridges of the Rocky or Oregon mountains. The name is taken from the river which, long before its actual discovery, had been supposed to exist beyond the mountains, and which was first called the Oregon by Jonathan Carver of Connecticut, who travelled in the interior of the continent in 1766. How he got the name, or whether he invented it himself, it is impossible, at the present day, to determine. The stream was not actually seen till 1792, many persons until then believing it to be fabulous. The name, however, remained, and is now not only applied to the country from which its waters are gathered, but, as the name of the river itself, is in "Married to immortal verse," "The continuous woods Where rolls the Oregon, and hears no sound, Save his own dashings." of lofty mountains. The shores are bold and high; in many parts, mountains rising immediately from the sea. Up to the 48th parallel there are few inlets, or islands, but further north there are thousands of islands, and a net-work of bays and peninsulas. The valleys of the interior are generally narrow. The climate is drier and milder by many degrees than on the Atlantic side in the same latitudes. Of the soil, different accounts have been given, some representing it as fertile, and others as of little value. The most valuable portion of it undoubtedly lies south of the river, though by far the best part of the territory, for its harbors and maritime advantages, lies around the strait of Fuca. To us as a trading power on the Pacific, these are invaluable. Until within a few years there have been but scanty settlements; a few trading posts and missionary stations. But the tide of American emigration has lately set in that direction, and nothing but some fatal misstep on our part, can prevent its habitable portions being occupied in a few years by our countrymen, and a vast trade thence carried on over all the Pacific. This country is claimed by America* as belonging exclusively to her; while England claims, not an exclusive right This country is traversed by ridges in any part of it, but a right to occupy We use the words "America" and "American" in a national sense only, using another designation for the continent, whenever we have occasion to mention it. and settle it, in common with America and other nations. The discussion between the two governments has grown to be an angry one; and if we were to judge by the late declarations of the English ministry, there remains no arbitrament but the sword. It is difficult, however, to believe that the government of Great Britain can seriously think of pushing their pretensions to the extent of a war, while we are confident that our government, in maintaining the rights of America, will see the propriety of discussing them with moderation as well as firmness, doing no act to provoke, and sedulously abstaining from even the appearance of disregarding the obligation of treaties. But while it does this, it has also a duty to perform to Americans. It is time that the insolence of Englishmen, now become almost habitual, were rebuked. Let us indeed be just; let us appear just; and let England and consequences take care of themselves. That we may present a concise as well as a just view of the real merits of this question of the Oregon, we shall endeavor to condense into as small a space as possible the grounds, both of fact, and of public law, on which our rights are founded. In doing this we shall strive to omit nothing material to the inquiry. What are the rules of public law, by which the question of right, in this case, is to be judged? They are these: 1. That in respect to newly discovered countries, the first discoverer has the prior right to occupy, provided he does so within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time depends upon the nature of the country, the uses to which it may be applied, and the wants of mankind in respect to it. If, for example, it were a rich West India island, the first discoverer could not rightfully prevent other nations from occupying and cultivating it if he did not see fit soon to do so himself. If on the other hand it were a remote barren island, there would be no necessity of immediate occupation. 2. That if the first discoverer does not occupy within this reasonable time, he is deemed to have abandoned his right, and the next discoverer stands as if he had been the first, and so on though any number of discoverers. 3. That the discovery of a river is deemed the discovery of its course and branches, and of the country drained by it. 4. That all treaties and engagements between governments, of an executory nature, are annulled by a subsequent war. With these rules before us, let us examine the questions of fact. The first settlements in the new world were all made on its eastern shores. The Pacific ocean was discovered by Balboa at Panama in 1513. No person, however, ventured to the north west coast as far as Oregon till 1543, when Ferrelo, a pilot in the service of Spain, penetrated to the latitude of 43. Thirty-six years afterwards, Drake made his famous voyage round the world, and it is maintained by the English government that he sailed as high on this coast as 48 ; but while one account of his voyage has it 48, the other has it 43; and there is good reason to think that this last account is the true one. The discrepancy in the two accounts destroys their value as evidence, and no reasonable person would think of resting any title upon them. Drake did not land on any part of this coast, and from that period for about two hundred years no Englishman visited it. The Spaniards, however, visited it several times, once more at least during the sixteenth century, twice in the seventeenth, and three times in the eighteenth, before the time of Cook's voyage. In 1778 that great navigator sailed along the coast, particularly examining the upper parts near the 47th and 48th parallels,and stopping at Nootka Sound. Afterwards the coast was frequently visited by the vessels of the different maritime nations. The river remained undiscovered. Vancouver passed along the shore in 1792, examined it and concluded that there was no river. Capt. Gray, an American, in the American ship Columbia, however, discovered it on the 11th of May, 1792, and sailed into it a considerable distance. Its existence had been previously sus pected, as we have already mentioned, and Heceta, a Spanish navigator, had in 1775 run along the shore, and on the 15th of August, at six in the evening, arrived opposite a bay in the latitude of 46 degrees 17 minutes, "where the currents and eddies were so strong that notwithstanding a press of sail it was difficult to get clear out of the northern cape, towards which the current ran, though its direction was eastward in consequence of the tide being at flood." These eddies and currents caused him "to believe that the place is the mouth of some great river or of some passage to another sea." "Notwithstanding the great difference between the position of this bay and that mentioned by De Fuca," he "had little difficulty in concluding they might be the same." He found it difficult on the following morning to enter, and continued his voyage towards the south. This does not appear to us to be a discovery of the river, or what was equivalent to it. The other remarkable places on the coast are the Strait of Fuca, and Nootka Sound. The former was discovered by De Fuca, a Greek pilot, in the service of Spain, in 1592: the latter by Perez, also in the Spanish service, in 1774. The first visits to this country, overland, were made, one by McKenzie, in the English service, from Canada, crossing the Rocky mountains to the north of the head waters of the Columbia, in 1793, and passing to the sea in the parallel of 52 1-2, the other by Lewis and Clarke, in the American service, who traversed the greater part of the Oregon region in 1805, and explored the river from its source to its mouth. So far then as the right of discovery is concerned, it should seem very clear, that the Spanish government had the title to the coasts and the country about Fuca's Straits, and that the American government had the same title to the interior washed by the river Oregon and its tributaries. As to occupancy. After the American war a considerable trade in fur sprung up on the north-west coast: vessels going there to take in cargoes for the China market. This trade provoked the jealousy of the Spanish government, which all the while claimed the dominion of the coast, so that, in 1788, the Viceroy of Mexico sent two vessels, the Princesa and the San Carlos, to inquire particularly respecting the Russian establishment at Prince William's Sound, and then to explore the coasts sonthward to California, looking for places convenient for the reception of Spanish colonies. The commanders on their return reported that the Russians had eight settlements on the coast, Containing altogether 252 Russian subjects, all west of Prince William's Sound, and that they were informed that two vessels had been sent that summer from Kodiak to form an establishment at Nootka Sound. The Viceroy thereupon despatched vessels early in 1789, with orders, in case any Russian or British vessel should appear at Nootka, to receive her civilly, but to declare the paramount rights of the Crown of Spain. Up to this period, May, 1789, no settlement or establishment whatever had been attempted, for the alleged settlement of Meares at Nootka must be regarded as a mere pretence, and no civilized nation had exercised any jurisdiction in any part of the west coasts of the new world between San Francisco and Prince William's Sound. Arriving at Nootka, the Spanish Commanders landed materials and built a fort; and afterwards seized two British vessels, which were engaged in the trade of the coasts. For this proceeding the British government demanded reparation; a warm dispute arose between the two governments, that had well nigh ended in war; but finally under the mediation of France it was brought to a close, by a convention, commonly called the Nootka treaty, or the convention of the Escurial; which, as it is important in this controversy, we shall give entire in the course of this article. The Spaniards also formed another settlement on the south side of the Strait of Fuca: and they continued at Nootka, with some intermissions, until about 1795, when they left it, for no other reason, so far as is known, than that it was useless and expensive. Since then they have had no settlements north of San Francisco. The first settlement of any kind made by British subjects west of the Rocky Mountains was in 1806, by Simon Fraser, who formed a trading establishment at a small lake, in the 54th parallel of latitude. Neither he nor any other British subject saw any of the waters of the Oregon until five years afterwards, and after Astoria had been founded in the Oregon country itself by American citizens. Before 1810, Mr. Henry, an agent of the Missouri Fur Company, had established a trading post on a branch of the Lewis River, one of the tributaries of the Oregon. The hostility of the Indians, and the want of provisions, led to its abandonment, however, in that year. In the same year, Captain Smith, of the ship Albatross, of Boston, attempted a settlement on the Oregon, about forty miles from its mouth. He built a house, and planted a garden; but the site not being good, he left it before the close of the year. Meantime Mr. Astor's expedition had been fitted out, and in March, 1811, Astoria was founded at the mouth of the Oregon. During the war it was captured by the British, but was restored in October, 1818, in pursuance of the stipulations of the treaty of peace. From that time to the present, the two governments, with few intermissions, have been engaged in negotiations about the title to the country. And it was agreed between them, first in 1818, and afterwards in 1827, it might be temporarily occupied by the people of both nations, without, however, impairing in any way the title of either. So that none of the discoveries or settlements, of either America or England since that time, can in any manner affect the title. * So far then as occupancy is concerned it appears scarcely disputable that the first settlements were by Spain, the second by America, and the last by England, and that the rights derived from occupancy are held in the same order. The rights we have been hitherto considering, are those which are derived from discoveries and settlements, on the Pacific Coasts or overland, from the eastern side of the mountains. But there are certain other rights which must not be overlooked; the rights derived from discoveries and settlements on the Atlantic Coasts. On the first colonization of the new world, the discovery and settlement of the Atlantic border were claimed to give a title across the Continent. The enlarged charter to the first colony of Virginia, for example, granted the country extending along the sea coast four hundred miles, and into the land throughout from sea to sea. De Soto, a Spaniard, was the discoverer of the Mississippi: but the French from Canada first explored its northern branches, established posts and colonies on their banks, and advancing down the river, finally got possession of the whole valley. Up to the peace of 1763, France claimed and possessed the countries watered by the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi, and their dependencies, under the names of New France and Louisiana; and by the treaty then made, Canada was ceded to Great Britain, and the Mississippi adopted as The conventions between the two countries are as follows: CONVENTION OF OCTOBER 20TH, 1818. Art. 3rd.—“ It is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the north-west coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harborз, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present convention, 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 claims of any other power or state to any part of the said country; the only object of the high contracting parties, in that respect, being to prevent disputes and differences among themselves." CONVENTION OF AUGUST 6тн, 1827. Art. 1st.--" All the provisions of the third article of the convention concluded between the United States of America and his Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, on the 20th of October, 1818, shall be, and they are hereby, further indefinitely extended and continued in force, in the same manner as if all the provisions of the said article were herein specifically recited. Art 2nd. It shall be competent, however, to either of the contracting parties, in case either should think fit, at any time after the 20th of October, 1828, on giving due notice of twelve months to the other contracting party, to annul and abrogate this convention; and it shall, in sach case, be accordingly entirely annulled and abrogated, after the expiration of the said term of notice. Art. 3rd." Nothing contained in this convention, or in the third article of the convention of the 20th October, 1919, hereby continuel in force, shall be construed tb impair, or in any manner affect, the claims which either of the contracting parties may have to any part of the country westward of Stony or Rocky Mountains." the boundary of their respective territories, on the south. By the treaty of Utrecht (A. D. 1713), all the Spanish titles to territory in the New World, as they stood in the time of Charles II. of Spain, who died in 1700, had been confirmed and guaranteed by Great Britain. By the treaty of 1763, the treaty of Utrecht was confirmed, and the river Mississippi was irrevocably fixed as the boundary between the English and French possessions. In terms it declares: "In order to re-establish peace on solid and durable foundations, and to remove for ever all subjects of dispute with regard to the limits of the British and French territories on the continent of America, that for the future, the confines between the dominions of his Britannic Majesty in that part of the world, shall be fixed irrevocably by a line drawn along the middle of the river Mississippi, from its source to the river Iberville, and from thence by a line drawn along the middle of this river, and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, to the sea." Nothing is said of the western limits of the French possessions, or of any claims of the English in that quarter. Now if England had then any title to the northwest coast, another boundary should have been settled between her and France, on that side. The omission to do so, implies that she had no title, or if she had, that she then renounced it for ever, to all territory west of the Mississippi, and south of its source, or of the 49th parallel. We have thus explained all the original titles to the country. It remains to trace them to the rent claim ants, Great Britain and America. Great Britain has no title by cession except what she may have obtained by the Nootka treaty: America has received by formal cession from both France and Spain all their rights: the first by the Louisiana treaty in 1803, the other by the Florida treaty in 1819. At the peace of 1763, France ceded to Spain all the country known under the name of Louisiana." In 1800, by a treaty between the Republic of France and the King of Spain, in consideration of the Republic enlarging the territories of the Duke of Parma, Spain ceded to the French Republic "the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent which it now has in the hands of Spain, and which it had Considerable discussion has been had respecting the proper western boundaries of Louisiana as thus ceded. We are inclined to the opinion that it reached to the South Sea. To us, however, the question appears to be of less importance in its relation to the present controversy, for the reason that it could only concern America and Spain, and that their differences respecting it were settled by a full cession to America by the treaty of Florida. Louisiana might have been greater or less; it might have stopped at the mountains, or have gone to the Pacific, but England, in either case, had no rights there: she had parted with all she had to either France or Spain, at the peace of 1763. The restitution of Astoria, after the war, is another important fact, by no means to be overlooked in this part of the argument. It will be recollected that the post was surrendered by Great Britain to the government of this country, by a formal act, so late as 1818, and if, as is asserted, there was any reservation in respect to its bearing upon the question of right, there is no evidence that any such reservation accompanied the act of delivery, or was made known to our government. One thing is quite clear, that if Astoria was upon British soil, it was unauthorized, and, having been taken in lawful war, this government had no claim whatever, to its restitution. The act of restitution, therefore, admitted that America had rights in the territory, even so early as the breaking out of the war, and long before the cession by Spain, of her rights by the treaty of Florida. Between Spain and America, there arose a question after the cession of 1803, respecting the proper limits of Louisiana; which was finally terminated in 1819, by the Florida treaty, by which |