NAVIGATION OF THE COLUMBIA
{"newspaper_name": "The Evansville journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2339, "word_count": 418, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9404000043869019], "ccnet_perplexity": [869.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The true Interpretation of the second ar
ticle oil theOregon treaty relative to The nav
igaton of the Columbia must remln in
doubt until the views of the British Govern
ment on that point are officially declared
Mr.. Benton says that there are two Hudson
Bay companies, the first of which has per-
petual charter, beyond the Rocky noun
tains. The second company is of recent
date, and is formed of the Hudson Bay and
the old Northwest Company united, and ex-
lists under. a licence of twenty-one years,
granted by the Crown, under act of ParIa-
ment. IL bears the name of Hudson Bay
Company; but Is SO entirely distinct from
the chartered company OF King Charles,
that il can carry on no trade on the waters
Of HHdson's Bay, as the old Hudson Bay
company can carry on none on the waters OF
the Pacific ocean,


This is Mr.. Benton's view of the subject
But on the other hand it is contended on
very good authority that there are not two
companies, but that the privileges of trade
with the Indians beyond the Rocky noun
tains were engraited upon the charter Of the
original company. This supplementary
grant, limited TO twenty-one years, dates
from the year 1921; it was renewed in
1912 for another period of twenry-one years
which will carry it 10 1868.


Now by the terms of the treaty the free
navigation of the Columbia is given 10 the
Hudson Bay company and TO all British
subjects trading with the company, and this
without limitation of time. Mr.. Benton,
argument assumes that this stipulation does
not refer TO the original Hudson Bay com
pany, but 10 new company, which he de-
clares was chartered in 1921, and whose
existence expires in 1868; hence he infer:
that the year 1868 is the limit, in point o.
duration, Of the privilege of free navigation


IL there be two Hudson Bay companies
il is remarkable that there should be no spe
cifc designations to distinguish them from
one another; that both charters should rur
in one name; tha. the treaty in using the
title common TO both should not particular
ize the one to which it referred.


In the absence Of positive knowledge Oh
the subject it is difficult TO accept Mr.. Ben
TONS hypothesis. The more probable sup
position is that there is but one Hudson
Bay Company, and that the privilege oI
trade beyond the Rocky mountains was a
supplementary grant extending the limits o