{"newspaper_name": "The daily union.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 6497, "word_count": 1124, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9498999714851379], "ccnet_perplexity": [950.7000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
House Of Representatives has passed the bill. Can


the Senate rightly refuse to give this additional


aid and effect TO the notice. Will not such refusal


greatly weaken the appeal which the notice makes


to Great Britain and in view of which it was passed.


VIII the Senate assume even the appearance of finch
ing at this juncture from the enactment Of such
measures, at the risk of being gsaysy misunderstood
oy the British government The Oregon bill is not
understood nor intended as a measure Of hostility
IL Is an act Of legislation parallel to the Legislation Of
Great Britain, bat more strictly restrained in its OPP
erations. ltprovides for the welfare IF our cit
izens. Itprovides for them government or rather
IL extends to them government in place of that
which they are already providing for themselves.
Are the provisions of the bill Objectionable, then,
in their operation after the convention shall have
terminated This is the point upon which, as We
suppose, the debate in the Senate must mainly
turn. Leaving out Of view for the present the
many and strong considerations which are admitted
to call for the adoption Of sOms Oregon bill, we pro.
pose to consider the suitableness Of the meas
ure adopted by the House in view of its remaining
in force after the convention shall have termi-
mated.


IL is said in the first place, that after the termi-
nation Of the convention, the existing bill extends
our jurisdiction up $40 49, II is not To be denied
that some Of the friends of tho bill have sonended
for such construction Of il, and have advocated it
in view of such construction. On the other hand
il is equally true that the opponents Of the bill
have claimed such construction one Of the argu
ments against IT, Laying out Of visv for tho Pres-
ent the question Of the proprety Of now passing an
act which shall thus carry our exclusive jurisdic-
uonup to the Russian line--we must yet ex-
express our strong conviction that the proviso Of the
present bill, as adopted by the House, do not, in
terms, so extend exclusive jurisdiction over the
whole territory. The language of the first section
Of the bill is "that the jurisdiction Of the supreme
court ofthe Territory of Iowa, and the laws of said
Territory, far as the same may be applicable as
they exist, hereby srisnded oVsr all that por
lion Qf the territory Of The United States which lies
west Of the Rocky mountains" Plainly enough,
these terms limit jurisdiction to territory
whatsoever that territory, greater or less, may
hereafter be found or settled to be. Now, we sub
NIT that il Congress is not to fix our boundary
line, thus clearly uenchng upon the prerogative of
the treaty-makng power, then these terms are not
only free from objection, but they seem to be


The most suitable terms in which the statute could be
expressed. We say in this statute that the


jurisdiction shall reach to the boundary line
wherever it may be. Surely this is neither
aggressive nor offensive, nor in any way objec-
tonoble on our part. 1t il the precise language
which BELTS the case OF joint occupancy under
treaty stipuations, approaching their termination
but not yet terminated. At least it BELTS such
state of things, unless Congress shall see f to
FIX our boundary by legislation, instead of waiting
for treaty to FIX it.


But it is said that during The srst.nes Of The con-
verion, this bill is intended to embrace within its


jurisdiction all American citizens in Oregon, residing
anywhere south of $40 40; that this must be the
construction of the act while the convention lasts;
and therefore that this construction, carrying
our jurisdiction up to the Russian line, must apply,
and will of apply udically, after the


ton shall have terminated To this reply, inthe
first place. that England herself cannot complain of
such construction BY her own act Of 1921, passed
when the convention Of 1918 had only seven years
TO run, she extended the jurisdiction of the courts
of Upper Canada all persons whatsoever resid-
ing in the Indian territories down to the line Of 42o
and not included in any civil government of the
United States. The terms of this British act
are fully admitted to cover every inch of
the Oregon territory, and to reach every man with
out exception who may be resident there. No,
exception ,ohaisuer from this jurisdiction is made in
favor Of American citizens. The jurisdiction of the
act does not recognise in its terms any single Amer
can right existing under the convention, save only
that in one Of its sections, it provides that exclusive


privileges Of trade shall be given to the Hudson Bay
Company subject to the proviso that such exclusive
privileges shall not operate to the prejudice
cluson Of American citizens already engaged in that
trade under the stipulations Of the convention. The
Hudson Bay Company are not to eject an American
trader That is the only exceptional provision.
The American trader if he stay, there, and if he be
not under the civil government Of the United States


in 1921, is then amenable, and altogether amenable
to the jurisdiction Of this British act. True enough,
for some time past the act is not known to have
been erecuted against American citizens, but every
lawyer knows that it is an act at every moment ex-
ecutory against such citizens. The omission so to
execute to act is a mere non-iisrr. The power
sleeps on the statute book. 1t may awake at any
moment. When it does awake, 1t must psrforce
comprehend every man in Oregon. The jurs1ic-
ton of the act-as mere matter of Jurisdiction
makes ausion whatsoever to the existence Of the
convention, nor to its close. A British territorial
act in full force capable OF full execution at any in
slant, is already in Oregon, reaches down to the
Mexican line, and embraces every man whatsoever
in the territory. ..,.. .......... ..... 49,.


Now, by the passage of such an act, Great Brit.
ain has, as we say, wholly foreclosed herself from
any objection to an act equally territorial, equally
ar-reachng, and equally comprehensive on our part.
England passed this act pending the convention. She
thereby put her own legislative construction on
the rights of both parties, guaranteed by the con-
vention. She incorporated into her act no clause
providing that should cease and determine at the
termination of the convention. On its face, and in
its terms, she left her act to on in perpetuity
during the convention, and after the convention had
ceased to exist. She thus precluded herself from