THE OREGON QUESTION

AND

THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION, MARCH 18, 1844.

I HAVE no purpose, Mr. Chairman, of attempting a detailed reply to the honorable gentleman who has just taken his seat. I was greatly in hopes that another member of this House, and I will add, another member of the Massachusetts delegation, who has so often instructed and delighted us on these questions of foreign controversy, (Mr. J. Q. Adams,) would have taken the floor for this purpose. I would gladly yield it to him, or, indeed, to any one else who is disposed for it, feeling, as I deeply do, the want of greater preparation and longer reflection for doing justice to the occasion. I am unwilling, however, that the speech which has just been delivered should pass off without some notice. I fear, too, that if I yield to the kind suggestion of a friend near me, and ask a postponement of the debate, I may lose an opportunity altogether. Recent proceedings in this House afford me very little encouragement to try such an experiment. On more than one occasion, questions of the highest interest and importance seem to have been brought up unexpectedly, as this has been, for the purpose of allowing some member of the majority of the House to deliver an elaborate exposition of his views, and then to have been shuffled off again by the previous question, or by a motion to lay on the table, before any member

of the minority could open his lips in reply. I proceed, therefore, to make the best of the opportunity which is now secured to me. And, in the first place, let me say a word in regard to the sectional character which has been given to this subject. It has been often said that the question about Oregon is a Western question, and a disposition has been manifested to charge hostility to Western interests and Western rights upon all who are not ready to draw the sword, without further delay, in defence of this Territory. I deny this position altogether. It is a national question. It is a question for the whole country. The North have as much interest in it as the West, and as much right to be heard upon it; indeed, there are some views in which it is more a Northern than a Western question. I cannot forget that the American claim to Oregon, so far as it rests upon discovery, dates back to Massachusetts adventure and Boston enterprise. It was a Boston ship which gave its name to the Columbia River. It was Captain Robert Gray, of Boston, who first discovered that river. It was the Hancock and the Adams of Massachusetts - the proscribed patriots of the Revolution whose names were inscribed on those remote capes. And if we turn from the early history of Oregon to its present importance, and to the immediate interests which are involved in its possession, the North will be found no less prominently concerned in the question. The great present value of this Territory has relation to the commerce and navigation of the Pacific Ocean. The whale fishery of this country requires safe stations and harbors on the northwest coast. And by what part of the nation is this fishery carried on? Why, Sir, the State of Massachusetts owns nine tenths of all the whale ships of the United States. The single town of New Bedford,-the residence of my honorable friend, Mr. Grinnell,-sends out 92,000, out of a little more than 130,000 tons of the American shipping em ployed in this business; and three other towns in the same district employ 31,170 tons of the remainder. So far, then, as the whaling interest is to be regarded, the Oregon question is emphatically a Massachusetts question. I feel bound to add, however, that the whole coast of Oregon can hardly furnish one really good harbor. South of the forty-ninth degree of latitude,—

a boundary which we have once offered to compromise upon,there is not one which a ship can get safely into, or safely out of, during three quarters of the year. The harbor of San Francisco, in Northern California, would be worth the whole Territory of Oregon to the whaling fleet of the nation.

A mere Western interest! Sir, I doubt whether the West has a particle of real interest in the possession of Oregon. It may have an interest, a momentary, seeming, delusive interest in a war for Oregon. Doubtless, the Western States might reap a rich harvest of spoils in the prosecution of such a war. Doubtless, there would be fat contracts of all sorts growing out of such a contest, which would enure to their peculiar advantage. Doubtless, the characteristic spirit of the western people—that spirit of restless adventure, and roving enterprise, and daring conflict, which the honorable gentleman has just eulogized — would find ample room and verge enough for its indulgence, even to satiety, in such a campaign. Whether that spirit, indomitable as it is in any ordinary encounter, would not be found stumbling upon the dark mountains, or fainting in the dreary valleys, or quenched beneath the perpetual snows which Nature has opposed to the passage to this disputed territory, remains to be seen. A march to Oregon, I am inclined to believe, would take the courage out of not a few who now believe themselves incapable of fatigue or fear. But suppose the war were over, successfully over, and Oregon ours, what interest, let me ask, what real, substantial, permanent interest would the West have in its possession? Are our western brethren straitened for elbow room, or likely to be so for a thousand years? Have they not too much land for their own advantage already? I verily believe that if land were only half as abundant and half as cheap as it is, the prosperity of the West would be doubled. As an Eastern representative I would never submit a proposition to raise the price of the public lands; such a proposition would be misconstrued and perverted. But if I were a Western man, I would ask nothing sooner, I would desire nothing more earnestly of this Government, than to double the price of these lands. It would put money into the pocket of every Western farmer, and into the coffers of every Western State. Sale for the purpose of settlement would not

be checked; speculation only would be restrained. The average income of the nation would be as great as now; the ultimate receipts far greater; and all parties would be benefited in the end. The West has no interest, the country has no interest, in extending our territorial possessions. This Union of ours must have limits; and it was well said by Mr. Senator Benton, in 1825, that westward, "the ridge of the Rocky Mountains may be named, without offence, as presenting a convenient, natural, and everlasting boundary. Along the back of this ridge the western limit of this Republic should be drawn, and the statue of the fabled God, Terminus, should be raised upon its highest peak, never to be thrown down."

The Oregon question, however, Mr. Chairman, as now presented to us, is not a question of interest, but of right; not a question as to the ultimate reach of our federal Union, but as to the existing extent of our territorial title. Upon this point I shall say little. little. An argument to this House in favor of our title to Oregon would be words thrown away. If any man can convince the British Government that the Territory is ours, his labor will be well employed, and the sooner he sets about it the better. But we are convinced already. For myself, certainly, I believe that we have a good title to the whole twelve degrees of latitude. I believe it, not merely because it is the part of patriotism to believe one's own country in the right, but because I am unable to resist the conclusions to that effect, to which an examination of the evidence and the authorities have brought me. In saying this, however, I would by no means be understood to concur in the idea which has been recently advanced in some quarters, that our title is of such a character that we are authorized to decline all negotiation on the subject. Why, Sir, with what face can we take such a stand, with the history of this question before us and before the world? Nothing to negotiate about! Has not every administration of our government, since we had a government to be administered, treated this as an open question? Have we not at one time expressly offered to abandon all pretension to five twelfths of the Territory, and to allow our boundary line to follow the forty-ninth degree of latitude? Have we not united in a convention of joint occupancy for thirty

years, in order to keep it an open question? What pretence have we for planting ourselves on our presumed rights at this late day, and for shutting our ears to all overtures of negotiation, and all assertion or argument of the rights of others? None; none whatever. Such a course would subject us to the just reproach and scorn of the civilized world.

But the question before the committee relates simply to the termination of the convention of joint occupancy. This convention originated in the year 1818, and was limited to the term of ten years. In 1827, it was extended indefinitely, subject, however, to the right of either party to annul and abrogate the same, on giv. ing twelve months' notice to the other party. And now the question is not whether this joint occupation of Oregon shall be continued forever. Nobody imagines that the United States and Great Britain are about to hold this Territory in common much longer. Neither country desires it; neither country would consent to it. The simple question is, whether the United States shall take the responsibility of giving the notice to-day; whether, after having agreed to this joint occupancy for nearly thirty years, we shall take occasion of this precise moment in the history of the two countries to insist on bringing it to a close? I am opposed, wholly opposed, to such a course. I agree with the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, (a committee, be it remembered, composed of six members of the Van Buren party, and of three only of the friends of Mr. Clay,) that it is entirely inexpedient to act at all on the subject at this time; and I sincerely wish that the chairman of that committee (Mr. C. J. Ingersoll) had saved me the trouble of advocating his own report, and had given us an argument in favor of its adoption, instead of making the any thing but reasonable or pacific speech, which he has just concluded.

Sir, I regard the proposition to give the required notice to the British Government at this precise moment, as eminently illtimed, both in regard to our relations with Great Britain and to our own domestic condition. We are just at the close of an administration. We are on the eve of another election of President. How this election may terminate may be a matter of doubt in some quarters. I have no doubt. But, however it may