[Historical Note.—1818 to 1846.]

[Historical Note.—1818 to 1846.]

1818.

In 1818 an agreement was come to between the Government of His Britannic Majesty and that of the United States respecting the boundary line between the British and United States territories in Northwestern America.

It was agreed in substance that for the space extending from the Lake of the Woods westward to the Rocky (then called the Stony) Mountains, the boundary line should be the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude.

With respect to any country that might be claimed by either party on the northwest coast, westward of the Rocky Mountains, it was agreed that for ten years the same, with its harbors and the navigation of its rivers, should be free and open to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two Powers; with a proviso that the agreement was not to prejudice any claim which either party might have to any part of that country.

This agreement was embodied in a Treaty made at London, 20th October, 1818.

The district between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific, or part of it, came to be known as Oregon or the Oregon Territory or district, the name being taken from the Oregon River, now usually called the Columbia.

The northern boundary of this district, as it was in question between the two Governments, was the parallel of 54° 40′ north latitude, being the southern boundary of the Russian territory, as recognized by Treaty. The southern boundary was the parallel of 42° north latitude, being the northern boundary of the Spanish territory, as recognized by Treaty.

The British Plenipotentiaries who negotiated the Treaty of 1818 acceded to the arrangement relating to the country west of the Rocky Mountains in the hope that by thus leaving that country open to the trade of both nations, they substantially secured every present advantage, while removing all prospect of immediate collision, without precluding any further discussion for a definite settlement. In their judgment the American Plenipotentiaries were not authorized to admit any territorial claim of Great Britain in that quarter to the southward of the Straits of Fuca, although they would have consented to leave those straits and the waters connected with them in the possession of Great Britain.

1824.

In 1824 negotiations were resumed for the settlement of questions between the two nations, including the question of the boundary west of the Rocky Mountains.

The British Plenipotentiaries contended for the right of British subjects to make settlements in the disputed territory, a right which they maintained was derived not only from discovery, but also from use, occupancy, and settlement. They proposed that Article III *of the Treaty of London of 1818 should cease to have effect, and that the boundary line west of the Rocky Mountains should be drawn due west to the point where the forty-ninth parallel strikes the great northeasternmost branch of the Oregon or Columbia River, marked on the maps as McGillivray’s River, thence down along the middle of that river, and down along the middle of the Oregon or Columbia to its junction with the Pacific Ocean.[ii]

The proposal of the United States Plenipotentiaries was to the effect that the term of ten years limited in Article III of the Treaty of 1818 should be extended to ten years from the date of a new Treaty, but that the rights of settlement and other rights should be restricted during the new term, so that the citizens of the United States should form no settlements to the north of the forty-ninth parallel, and that British subjects should form no settlements to the south of that parallel, or to the north of the fifty-fourth.

Terms were not agreed on, and the Conference came to an end in July, 1824.

1826, 1827.

In November, 1826, negotiations were again resumed.

The United States proposal was, that if the forty-ninth parallel should be found to intersect the Oregon or McGillivray’s River at a navigable point, the whole course of that river thence to the ocean should be made perpetually free to British vessels and subjects.

The British Plenipotentiaries were authorized to offer that if the United States would consent to the Columbia being the southern British frontier, the United States should have the harbor in De Fuca Strait, called by Vancouver Port Discovery, with land five miles in breadth encircling it.

Should this offer not fully satisfy the United States, the British Plenipotentiaries were then authorized to extend the proposition, so as to include the cession by Great Britain to the United States of the whole peninsula comprised within lines described by the Pacific to the west, De Fuca’s Inlet to the north, Hood’s Canal (so called in Vancouver’s charts) to the east, and a line drawn from the southern point of Hood’s Canal to a point ten miles south of Gray’s Harbor to the south, by which arrangement the United States would possess that peninsula in exclusive sovereignty, and would divide the possession of Admiralty Inlet with Great Britain, the entrance being free to both parties.

The negotiations ended in a Convention dated 6th August, 1827. This Convention continued Article III of the Treaty of 1818 indefinitely, but with power to either party to put an end to it on twelve months’ notice, (after 20th October, 1828.)

The Convention also contained a saving for the claims of either party to any part of the country west of the Rocky Mountains.

1827–1842.

Negotiations on the Oregon question remained in abeyance until the special mission of Lord Ashburton to the United States in 1842, when he received the following instructions on this subject:

Your lordship may, therefore, propose to the Government of the United States, as a fair and equitable adjustment of their [the two Governments] respective claims, a line of boundary commencing at the mouth of the Columbia River; thence by a line drawn along the middle of that river to its point of confluence with the Great Snake River; thence by a line carried due east of the Rocky or Stony Mountains; and thence by a line drawn in a northerly direction along the said mountains until it strikes the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude. The southern bank of the Columbia River would thus be *left to the Americans and the northern bank to the English, the navigation of the river being free to both, it being understood that neither party should form any new settlement within the limits assigned to each on the north or south side of the river respectively.[iii]

Should your lordship find it impracticable to obtain the line of boundary above described, Her Majesty’s Government would not refuse their assent to a line of boundary commencing at the Rocky or Stony Mountains at the point where the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude strikes those mountains; thence along that parallel to the point where it strikes the great northeasternmost branch of the Columbia River, marked in the map as McGillivray’s River; thence down the middle of that river and down the middle of the Columbia River to its junction with the ocean. But your lordship will reject the proposal formerly made by the American Government, in case it should be repeated, of following the forty-ninth parallel of latitude from the Rocky Mountains to the Ocean, as the boundary of the territory of the two States.

If the Government of the United States should refuse the proposed compromise, and should nevertheless determine to annul the Convention of 1827, the rights of the British Government to the whole of the territory in dispute must be considered as unimpaired.

This mission resulted in the Treaty of Washington of 9th August, 1842, which contained no arrangement respecting Oregon. The main reason that induced Lord Ashburton to abstain from proposing to carry on the discussion on this subject was the apprehension that thereby the settlement of the far more important matter of the Northeastern boundary might be impeded or exposed to the hazard of failure.

1843.

In August, 1843, Mr. Fox, Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington, was asked whether the United States Government were taking any steps in furtherance of the Oregon Boundary negotiation, and to state that Her Majesty’s Government were willing to transfer the negotiation to Washington should the United States Government object to London.

In October instructions were sent to Mr. Everett, the United States Minister in London, to treat with Her Majesty’s Government for the adjustment of the Boundary. In the mean time Mr. Pakenham had been appointed Her Majesty’s Minister to the United States in succession to Mr. Fox. Before his appointment had been gazetted, Mr. Everett informed Lord Aberdeen orally that he had received powers to negotiate the Oregon question in London. Lord Aberdeen, however, stated to him that a new Minister had already been appointed by Her Majesty to negotiate at Washington.

In consequence of this arrangement the negotiations were removed to Washington, and Mr. Everett stated in a dispatch to his Government ¹ that he would use his best efforts to produce such an impression on Lord Aberdeen’s mind as to the prominent points of the question as might have a favorable influence in the preparation of the instructions to be given to Mr. Pakenham.

In an interview with Lord Aberdeen, Mr. Everett urged that the boundary should be carried along the forty-ninth parallel to the sea. Lord Aberdeen said that this proposal had been made in 1824 and 1826, and rejected, and that there was no reason for believing that this country, more than the United States, would then agree to terms which had been previously declined, and that consequently there must be concession on both sides, on which principle Lord Aberdeen expressed himself willing to act.

In December Mr. Pakenham was authorized to re-open negotiations at Washington on the Oregon question. He was directed to make substantially the same proposals for the settlement of the boundary as had been made by Great Britain in 1826.

He was authorized to add, should that proposition be found to be unacceptable, that *Her Majesty’s Government would be willing to convert into a free port any harbor, either on the main-land or on Vancouver’s Island, south of the forty-ninth parallel, which the United States Government might desire.[iv]

Further, if he should think that the extension of the privilege would lead to the final adjustment of the question, he was authorized to declare that Her Majesty’s Government would be willing to make all the ports within De Fuca’s Inlet, and south of the forty-ninth parallel, free ports.

Should these proposals be rejected, he was then to propose that the whole question should be referred to the arbitration of a friendly Sovereign State.

In the event of the United States Government refusing to agree to arbitration, he was then to propose that the Treaty of 1818–27 should be renewed for a further period of ten years.

In the event of negotiations being broken off, he was then to declare to the United States Government that Her Majesty’s Government still asserted and would maintain an equal right with the United States to the occupation of the whole of the territory in dispute, and that as Her Majesty’s Government would carefully and scrupulously abstain and cause Her Majesty’s subjects to abstain from any act which might be justly considered as an encroachment on the rights of the United States, so they expected that the Government of the United States would exhibit and enforce on their part an equal forbearance with respect to the rights of Great Britain, which rights, believing them to be just, Great Britain would be prepared to defend.

1844.

In February, 1844, Mr. Pakenham addressed a note to the United States Secretary of State proposing a renewal of the negotiations, which proposal was favorably received by him.

On 22nd August, Mr. Pakenham received a notification from Mr. Calhoun, then the Secretary of State, that he was prepared to proceed with the negotiation.

At a conference on the 26th, Mr. Pakenham laid before Mr. Calhoun the proposal authorized by his instructions relative to a free port either on the main-land or on Vancouver’s Island south of the forty-ninth parallel.

This proposal was declined by Mr. Calhoun. He afterwards presented a paper (dated September 3) stating his reasons. The paper began thus:

The Undersigned American Plenipotentiary declines the proposal of the British Plenipotentiary, on the ground that it would have the effect of restricting the possessions of the United States to limits far more circumscribed than their claims clearly entitle them to. It proposes to limit their northern boundary by a line drawn from the Rocky Mountains along the forty-ninth parallel of latitude to the northeasternmost branch of the Columbia River, and thence down the middle of that river to the sea, giving to Great Britain all the country north, and to the United States all south of that line, except a detached territory extending on the Pacific and the Straits of Fuca, from Bullfinch’s Harbor to Hood’s Canal. To which it is proposed in addition to make free to the United States any port which the United States Government might desire, either on the main-land or on Vancouver’s Island south of latitude 49°.

By turning to the map hereto annexed, and on which the proposed boundary is marked in pencil, it will be seen that it assigns to Great Britain almost the entire region on its north side drained by the Columbia River, and lying on its northern bank. It is not deemed necessary to state at large the claims of the United States to this territory, and the grounds on which they rest, in order to make good the assertion that it restricts the possessions of the United States within narrower bounds than they are clearly entitled to. It will be sufficient for this purpose to show that they are fairly entitled to the entire region drained by the river; and to the establishment of this point, the Undersigned proposes accordingly to limit his remarks at present.

The paper proceeded with arguments, and ended thus:

* Such are our claims to that portion of the territory, and the grounds on which they rest. The Undersigned believes them to be well founded, and trusts that the British Plenipotentiary will see in them sufficient reasons why he should decline his proposal.[v]

The Undersigned Plenipotentiary abstains, for the present, from presenting the claims which the United States may have to other portions of the territory.

The Undersigned, &c.

In answer to this statement, Mr. Pakenham delivered a paper (marked D, and dated September 12) of which it is sufficient for the present purpose to state the concluding passages:

In fine, the present state of the question between the two Governments appears to be this: Great Britain possesses and exercises, in common with the United States, a right of joint occupancy in the Oregon Territory, of which right she can be divested, with respect to any part of that territory, only by an equitable partition of the whole between the two Powers.

It is, for obvious reasons, desirable that such a partition should take place as soon as possible, and the difficulty appears to be in devising a line of demarkation which shall leave to each party that precise portion of the territory best suited to its interest and convenience.

The British Government entertained the hope that by the proposal lately submitted for the consideration of the American Government, that object would have been accomplished. According to the arrangements therein contemplated, the Northern Boundary of the United States west of the Rocky Mountains would, for a considerable distance, be carried along the same parallel of latitude which forms their Northern boundary on the eastern side of those mountains, thus uniting the present Eastern Boundary of the Oregon Territory with the Western Boundary of the United States, from the forty-ninth parallel downwards. From the point where the 49° of latitude intersects the northeastern branch of the Columbia River, called in that part of its course McGillivray’s River, the proposed line of boundary would be along the middle of that river till it joins the Columbia, then along the middle of the Columbia to the ocean, the navigation of the river remaining perpetually free to both parties.

In addition Great Britain offers a separate territory on the Pacific, possessing an excellent harbor, with a further understanding that any port or ports, whether on Vancouver’s Island or on the Continent, south of the forty-ninth parallel, to which the United States might desire to have access, shall be made free ports.

It is believed that by this arrangement, ample justice would be done to the claims of the United States, on whatever ground advanced, with relation to the Oregon Territory. As regards extent of territory, they would obtain, acre for acre, nearly half of the entire territory to be divided. As relates to the navigation of the principal river, they would enjoy a perfect equality of right with Great Britain; and, with respect to harbors, it will be seen that Great Britain shows every disposition to consult their convenience in that particular.

On the other hand, were Great Britain to abandon the line of the Columbia as a frontier, and to surrender her right to the navigation of that river, the prejudice occasioned to her by such an arrangement would, beyond all proportion, exceed the advantage accruing to the United States from the possession of a few more square miles of territory. It must be obvious to every impartial investigator of the subject that, in adhering to the line of the Columbia, Great Britain is not influenced by motives of ambition with reference to extent of territory, but by considerations of utility, not to say necessity, which cannot be lost sight of, and for which allowance ought to be made in an arrangement professing to be based on considerations of mutual convenience and advantage.

The Undersigned believes that he has now noticed all the arguments advanced by the American Plenipotentiary in order to show that the United States are fairly entitled to the entire region drained by the Columbia River. He sincerely regrets that their views on this subject should differ in so many essential respects.

It remains for him to request that, as the American Plenipotentiary declines the proposal offered on the part of Great Britain, he will have the goodness to state what arrangement he is on the part of the United States prepared to propose for an equitable adjustment of the question; and more especially, that he will have the goodness to define the nature and extent of the claims which the United States may have to other portions of the territory, to which allusion is made in the concluding part of his statement, as it is obvious that no arrangement can be made with respect to part of the territory in dispute, while a claim is reserved to any portion of the remainder.

The Undersigned, &c.

*Mr. Calhoun then presented a paper, (dated September 20,) in which he said he had read with attention the counter-statement of the British Plenipotentiary, but without weakening his confidence in the validity of the title of the United States, and, after arguments, concluded thus:[vi]

The Undersigned cannot consent to the conclusion to which, on a review of the whole ground, the counter-statement arrives, that the present state of the question is, that Great Britain possesses and exercises, in common with the United States, a right of joint occupancy in the Oregon Territory, of which she can be divested only by an equitable partition of the whole between the two Powers. He claims, and he thinks he has shown, a clear title on the part of the United States to the whole region drained by the Columbia, with the right of being reinstated and considered the party in possession while treating of the title, in which character he must insist on their being considered in conformity with positive Treaty stipulations. He cannot, therefore, consent that they shall be regarded, during the negotiation, merely as occupants in common with Great Britain, nor can he, while thus regarding their rights, present a counter-proposal based on the supposition of a joint occupancy, merely until the question of title to the territory is fully discussed. It is, in his opinion, only after a discussion which shall fully present the titles of the parties respectively to the territory, that their claims to it can be fairly and satisfactorily adjusted. The United States desire only what they may deem themselves justly entitled to, and are unwilling to take less. With their present opinion of their title, the British Plenipotentiary must see that the proposal which he made at the second Conference, and which he more fully sets forth in his counter-statement, falls far short of what they believe themselves justly entitled to.

In reply to the request of the British Plenipotentiary that the Undersigned should define the nature and extent of the claims which the United States have to the other portions of the territory, and to which allusion is made in the concluding part of Statement A, he has the honor to inform him in general terms that they are derived from Spain by the Florida Treaty, and are founded on the discoveries and explorations of her navigators, and which they must regard as giving them a right to the extent to which they can be established, unless a better can be opposed.

In various informal conversations between Mr. Pakenham and Mr. Calhoun, when Mr. Calhoun insisted on the parallel of 49° as the very lowest terms which the United States would accept, Mr. Pakenham told him that, if he wished Her Majesty’s Government even to take into consideration a proposal founded on that basis, it must be accompanied by some indications of a desire on the part of the United States Government to make some corresponding sacrifice to accommodate the interest and convenience of Great Britain; that Her Majesty’s Government had already gone very far in the way of concession, while the United States Government had as yet shown no disposition to recede from their original proposal. To which Mr. Calhoun replied, on one occasion, that for his part he should have no objection to give up absolutely the free navigation of the Columbia, which had before been offered only conditionally; on another occasion, he said that if Great Britain would consent to the parallel of 49° on the Continent, perhaps the United States might be willing to leave to Great Britain the entire possession of Vancouver’s Island, Fuca’s Inlet, and the passage northwards from it to the Pacific remaining an open sea to both countries; but he never said that he would be ready to yield both these points. In fact, he said that he was not authorized to make any proposal of the kind, nor should he until he had ascertained that such an arrangement would find favor with the Senate.

1845.

In January, 1845, in answer to a proposal, made by Mr. Pakenham, to submit the question to arbitration, Mr. Calhoun said that, while the President united with Her Majesty’s Government in the desire to see the question settled as early as might be practicable, he could not accede to the offer; adding this:

*Waiving all other reasons for declining it, it is sufficient to state, that he continues to entertain the hope that the question may be settled by the negotiation now pending between the two countries; and that he is of opinion it would be unadvisable to entertain a proposal to resort to any other mode, so long as there is hope of arriving at a satisfactory settlement by negotiation; and especially to one which might rather retard than expedite its final adjustment.[vii]

On the 3d of April, Lord Aberdeen addressed to Mr. Pakenham the following dispatch, the tone and contents of which show the seriousness of the position in which the controversy then was, and the determination of Her Majesty’s Government to maintain their claims:

April 3, 1845.

Sir: The inaugural speech of President Polk has impressed a very serious character on our actual relations with the United States; and the manner in which he has referred to the Oregon question, so different from the language of his predecessor, leaves little reason to hope for any favorable result of the existing negotiation.

I presume that you will have acted upon my instruction of the 3d of March, and have repeated to the new Secretary of State the proposal of an arbitration, which you were directed to make to his predecessor. If this should be declined by Mr. Polk’s Government in the same manner and for the same reason as assigned by Mr. Tyler, namely, the hope that the matter might yet be favorably terminated by negotiation, such a mode of refusal would at least display a friendly spirit, and would not close the door against all further attempts to arrive at such a conclusion. On the other hand, if the proposal should be simply rejected, and the rejection should not be accompanied by any specific proposition on the part of the Government of the United States, we must consider the negotiation as entirely at an end. Indeed, we could scarcely, under such circumstances, take any further step with a due regard to our honor and consistency.

In the event of arbitration being rejected, and the failure of every endeavor to effect a partition of the territory on a principle of mutual concession, you were directed, in my dispatch of the 18th of November, to propose the further extension for a fixed term of years of the existing Convention. This, it is true, would have been an imperfect and unsatisfactory arrangement; but it might have been tolerated in the hope that the prevalence of friendly feelings, and the admitted interest of both parties, would in due time have led to a permanent settlement of an amicable description. The recent declarations of Mr. Polk forbid any such hope; and there is too much reason to believe that the extension of the Convention for a fixed period would be employed in active preparation for future hostility.

You will, therefore, consider this portion of my instructions, to which I have now referred, as canceled.

Judging from the language of Mr. Polk, I presume we must expect that the American Government will renounce the Treaty without delay. In this case, unless the question be speedily settled, a local collision will be liable to take place, which may involve the countries in serious difficulty, and not improbably lead to war itself.

At all events, whatever may be the course of the United States Government, the time is come when we must be prepared for every contingency. Our naval force in the Pacific is amply sufficient to maintain our supremacy in that sea; and Sir George Seymour has been instructed to repair without delay to the coasts of the Oregon Territory.

You will hold a temperate, but firm, language to the members of the Government and to all those with whom you may converse. We are still ready to adhere to the principle of an equitable compromise; but we are perfectly determined to concede nothing to force or menace, and are fully prepared to maintain our rights. This is the spirit in which Her Majesty’s Government have declared themselves in Parliament, and to this they will adhere.

I thought it so important that our intentions should be clearly known and understood in the United States without delay, that I detained the last American mail, in order that a correct report of the proceedings in Parliament on the Oregon question might reach Washington as early as possible.

Nothing can be more encouraging and satisfactory than the spirit which has been exhibited on this occasion, both in Parliament and in the country generally; and it is evident that Her Majesty’s Government will be warmly supported in whatever measures may be considered really just and necessary.

I am, &c.,

ABERDEEN.

* Before this dispatch reached Mr. Pakenham, Mr. Buchanan had been appointed Mr. Calhoun’s successor in the office of Secretary of State. Mr. Pakenham informed Mr. Buchanan of the instructions which he had received, again to press on the Government of the United States the expediency of arbitration. But Mr. Buchanan said on one occasion that he did not despair of effecting a settlement by negotiation, by adopting (to use his own words) the principle of giving and taking; and on another occasion that settlement by arbitration did not meet with the concurrence of the President and his Cabinet, that they all entertained objections to that course of proceeding, and that they preferred negotiation, hoping, as they did hope, that by negotiation a satisfactory result would at last be attained.[viii]

On the 16th July, Mr. Buchanan delivered to Mr. Pakenham a paper (marked J. B.) containing his proposal for settlement. It began thus:

The Undersigned, &c., now proceeds to resume the negotiation on the Oregon question at the point where it was left by his predecessor.

The British Plenipotentiary, in his note to Mr. Calhoun of the 12th September last, requests “that as the American Plenipotentiary declines the proposal offered on the part of Great Britain, he will have the goodness to state what arrangement he is, on the part of the United States, prepared to propose for an equitable adjustment of the question, and more especially that he will have the goodness to define the nature and extent of the claims which the United States may have to other portions of the territory to which allusion is made in the concluding part of his statement, as it is obvious that no arrangement can be made with respect to a part of the territory in dispute, while a claim is reserved to any portion of the remainder.”

The Secretary of State will now proceed (reversing the order in which these requests have been made,) in the first place, to present the title of the United States to the territory north of the valley of the Columbia; and will then propose on the part of the President the terms upon which, in his opinion, this long-pending controversy may be justly and equitably terminated between the parties.

The paper (after a lengthened argument) ended thus:

Such being the opinion of the President in regard to the title of the United States, he would not have consented to yield any portion of the Oregon Territory, had he not found himself embarrassed, if not committed, by the acts of his predecessors. They had uniformly proceeded upon the principle of compromise in all their negotiations. Indeed, the first question presented to him, after entering upon the duties of his office was, whether he should abruptly terminate the negotiation which had been commenced and conducted between Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Pakenham on the principle avowed in the first Protocol, not of contending for the whole territory in dispute, but of treating of the respective claims of the Parties, “with the view to establish a permanent boundary between the two countries, westward of the Rocky Mountains.”

In view of these facts, the President has determined to pursue the present negotiation to its conclusion, upon the principle of compromise in which it commenced, and to make one more effort to adjust this long-pending controversy. In this determination he trusts that the British Government will recognize his sincere and anxious desire to cultivate the most friendly relations between the two countries, and to manifest to the world that he is actuated by a spirit of moderation. He has, therefore, instructed the Undersigned again to propose to the Government of Great Britain that the Oregon Territory shall be divided between the two countries by the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean; offering, at the same time, to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on Vancouver’s Island, south of this parallel, which the British Government may desire. He trusts that Great Britain may receive this proposition in the friendly spirit in which it was dictated, and that it may prove the stable foundation of lasting peace and harmony between the two countries. The line proposed will carry out the principle of continuity equally for both parties, by extending the limits both of ancient Louisiana and Canada to the Pacific, along the same parallel of latitude which divides them east of the Rock Mountains, and it will secure to each a sufficient number of commodious harbors on the northwest coast of America.

The Undersigned, &c.

Thereupon, Mr. Pakenham presented a paper, dated 29th July, beginning thus:

* Notwithstanding the prolix discussion which the subject has already under gone, the Undersigned, &c., feels obliged to place on record a few observations in reply to the statement marked J. B., which he had the honor to receive on the 16th of this month from the hands of the Secretary of State of the United States, terminating with a proposition on the part of the United States for the settlement of the Oregon question.[ix]

Mr. Pakenham ended this paper as follows:

After this exposition of the views entertained by the British Government, respecting the relative value and importance of the British and American claims, the American Plenipotentiary will not be surprised to hear that the Undersigned does not feel at liberty to accept the proposal offered by the American Plenipotentiary for the settlement of the question.

This proposal, in fact, offers less than that tendered by the American Plenipotentiaries in the Negotiation of 1826, and declined by the British Government.

On that occasion it was proposed that the navigation of the Columbia should be made free to both parties. On this point nothing is said in the proposal to which the Undersigned has now the honor to reply; while with respect to the proposed freedom of the ports on Vancouver’s Island, south of latitude 49°, the facts which have been appealed to in this paper, as giving to Great Britain the strongest claim to the possession of the whole island, whole island, would seem to deprive such proposal of any value.

The Undersigned therefore trusts that the American Plenipotentiary will be prepared to offer some further proposal for the settlement of the Oregon question more consistent with fairness and equity, and with the reasonable expectations of the British Government, as defined in the statement marked D, which the Undersigned had the honor to present to the American Plenipotentiary at the early part of the present negotiation.

The Undersigned, &c.

Mr. Pakenham had thus declined to accept the proposal of the United States Government. Mr. Buchanan thereupon delivered another paper dated 30th August, in which, after further arguments, he withdrew that proposal. The concluding passages of this paper were as follows:

Upon the whole, from the most careful and ample examination which the Undersigned has been able to bestow upon the subject, he is satisfied that the Spanish-American title now held by the United States, embracing the whole territory between the parallelof 42° and 54° 40′, is the best in existence to this entire region, and that the claim of Great Britain to any portion of it has no sufficient foundation.

Notwithstanding that such was, and still is, the opinion of the President, yet, in the spirit of compromise and concession, and in deference to the action of his predecessors the Undersigned, in obedience to his instructions, proposed to the British Plenipotentiary to settle the controversy by dividing the territory in dispute by the forty-ninth parallel of latitude, offering, at the same time, to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on Vancouver s Island, south of this latitude, which the British Government might desire. The British Plenipotentiary has correctly suggested that the free navigation of the Columbia River was not embraced in this proposal to Great Britain, but, on the other hand, the use of free ports on the southern extremity of this island had not been included in former offers.

Such a proposition as that which has been made, never would have been authorized by the President, had this been a new question.

Upon his accession to office he found the present negotiation pending. It had been instituted in the spirit and upon the principle of compromise. Its object was as avowed by the negotiators, not to demand the whole territory in dispute for either country; but, in the language of the first Protocol, “to treat of the respective claims of the two countries to the Oregon Territory, with a view to establish a permanent boundary between them, westward of the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.”

Placed in this position, and considering that Presidents Monroe and Adams had, on former occasions, offered to divide the territory in dispute by extending the forty-ninth parallel of latitude to the Pacific Ocean, he felt it to be his duty not abruptly to arrest the negotiation, but so far to yield his own opinion as once more to make a similar offer.

Not only respect for the conduct of his predecessors, but a sincere and anxious desire to promote peace and harmony between the two countries influenced him to pursue this course. The Oregon question presents the only cloud which intercepts the prospect of a long career of mutual friendship and beneficial commerce between the two nations, and this cloud he desired to remove.

*These are the reasons which actuated the President to offer a proposition so liberal to Great Britain.[x]

And how has the proposition been received by the British Plenipotentiary? It has been rejected without even a reference to his own Government. Nay, more, the British Plenipotentiary, to use his own language, “trusts that the American Plenipotentiary will be prepared to offer some further proposal for the settlement of the Oregon question more consistent with fairness and equity, and with the reasonable expectations of the British Government.”

Under such circumstances the Undersigned is instructed by the President to say that he owes it to his own country, and a just appreciation of her title to the Oregon Territory, to withdraw this proposition to the British Government which had been made under his direction, and it is hereby accordingly withdrawn.

In taking this necessary step, the President still cherishes the hope that this longpending controversy may yet be finally adjusted in such a manner as not to disturb the peace or interrupt the harmony now so happily subsisting between the two countries.

The Undersigned, &c.

1846.

On 9th February, 1846, the House of Representatives, and on 17th April the Senate, of the United States passed a joint resolution authorizing the President to give the requisite year’s notice to put an end to the Convention of 1827. The notice was dated the 28th of April; it reached the United States Minister at London on the 15th of May, and was by him sent to Lord Aberdeen on the 20th.

Meantime, on the 18th of May, Lord Aberdeen addressed the following instructions to Mr. Pakenham: