{"newspaper_name": "The North-Carolina standard.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 6769, "word_count": 1199, "ccnet_language_score": [0.972100019454956], "ccnet_perplexity": [895.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
boundaries-which limit or confer territorial |
rights, are unaffected by any and every change in
the relations between the two countries. The
treaty of 1870 between Spain and Great Britain
is clearly embraced in the latter class 1t provid-
ed for trade with the Indians and for settlements,
for the purposes of trade and for that purpose on


ly. The right TO make settlements can, by no
fair construction, be regarded as right TO appro-


pirate territory. Such construction is not war
ranted by the unambiguous meaning of the terms
employed; and when we refer to extraneous con-
|siderations, in order to aid US in coming at the
meaning of the parties, this construction has still


less on which 10 stand Ifterritorial rights were
intended to be secured, it is reflection to suppose
that two such intelligent nations would not have
employed less equivocal and more precise and de-
finite terms Sill less can it be believed that
Great Britain, who was the party to be benefited
would have left such essential and permanent


rights to implication and construction 1t is only


when she seeks to extend her claims far beyond
the meaning and intention of the power with


which she IS treating, that she employs doubtful


and ambiguous phrases 1t is by the arts and


tricks OF diplomacy, she aims 10 accomplish her


wishes, when more open and direct means have


failed OF success. Again, at the time when this


treaty was made, and for many years before, Spain


seemed to be beset with a perfect monomania for


the acquisition of territory-for the discovery of


now Islands and new continents Her exploring


vessels were sent out into every sea- and the ut


termost parts of the Garth, in search of some new


spot on which 10 plant the standard of her enter


prise and power. Is the idea that the treaty of


1890, acknowledged Joint territorial tights in this


northwest territory, which clearly the proper


ty of Spain by discovery, between these two na-


tions, consistent with the avarice of Spain-with


her rage for the acquisition of more land Is it


to be credited that she would thus surrender the


darling of her affections, the object of all her self


sacrificing efforts, without even a struggle to


maintain and preserve them2


Is it not more natural more consistent with the
circumstances OF the two nations at that time to
believe that Great Britain represented to Spain


what she now says to US, that she did not desire


the country for the purpose of making permanent
settlements, but as afording facilities of trade with


the Indian for its furs. This facility, this privi
lege oftrade, we might well suppose that Spain


would be willing, for valuable considerations, to


grant, inasmuch as the country was only desira-
Bile to her as future abode for her citizens, and


for the precious metals which might abound in
the bosom of its mountains. Moreover if the


the treaty OF 1890 was an appropriation on the


part OF those powers of the Oregon territory, is it


not little remarkable that soon after the close of
F the last war, Great Britain should have placed


the United States In possession of portion OF this
very territory which had been taken from the lat
ter during the last ware Can she admit, without


involving herself in dishonor, that she surrender
ed TO our government at that time territory which
, she now urges belonged to herself and Spain ?


Is it not more easy to believe that this right TO
the territory is all after thought of hers press
, ed now with the greater pertinacity because OF
our offer to compromise, because of tacit ac-
acknowledgement she construes it, that she had
permanent nights there2


, Gentlemen have been pleased Mr.. Chairman,


to consider this question in its bearing upon the
peaceful relations of the countries, and trust
l shall be pardoned if 1 should so far initiate the


example which has been set to express my
opinions on that point. l venture to say that no
one would dPprecate more than myself war
, with Eng land, or with any other power. trust
that feel just appreciation of the horrid caam-
ties Of war-the effusion of blood it would pro-
duce, the loss of life it would OCCASION the injury
to commerce it would effect. But these are inva
riable and unavoidable effects Of all war; effects
which would be visited on Great Britain in de-


gree equal, at least, to what we might experience


of them. And if the invariable and una avoid1 able
effects OF war to be eectually urged against the


maintenance of our just rights it requires no Solo


to see that these hts forever TO be aban
doned whenever their assertion would, by the most
remote probability, lead US into conflict with an
other people. 1t appears to me that in ascertain
t ing our rights, and in coming to determination
to vlndicate thcm considerations of peace or war
should not be allowed to exercise controlling in
l., fuence. In case of doubt and uncertainty to


our rights. admit that they should be allowed to
, turn the scale in favor of compromise, or, if ne
cessary, an abandonment of our pretensons. Bu
when rights are clear and ndisputabIe," as
clear as sunbeam, as we have been taught tc
regard them in respect to Oregon, it will not dc
s 10 listen TO thcm unless prepared to depre
n cate war on any occasion, and for any purpose
e 1t appears to me, sir, that the example of our rev
dictionary fathers is the only proper in such
}, cases. and one which recommends itself 10 ou
it most favorable consideration. When they were
1t about to engage in a conflict with the dreadful
= power of Great Britain and that. too at time
o when the odds were hundred-fold greater agains
e them than they are against us, did they stop t.
calculate the consequences of the truly appalling
E. contest in which they were about to engage
" No, sir. They but satisfied themselves of thei
S. rights, and they went ahead to vindcate them
n leaving the consequences to Him who rules tn
4 destinles of nations as we'll as OF individuals
Their suferings, and their losses, and hazard
n were far more startling than any that can possb
ii befal u.s. Their sufferings were imprinted b.
s their bloody footsteps the frozen earth-thei
loss, if overwhelmed would have been the los
OF of freedom-their hazard was that of reaping th
death of the traitor and the gnomny of the rebt
7e -suffering, and losses and hazards which in n
n possible event can come to US.


m Such was the spirit that actuated our ancestor
n then, and such believe to be the spirit by whic
H. large portion of the American people are actl
OF ated now. If a war therefore should unfortunat
.h ly grow out of this matter, its responsibility wha
st ever it may be, whether for glory or for sham
4 must and will rest unon those who have prove