THE TRIBUNE.

The Right of tho Oregon Cause.-The Claims OF


Ench Pnrty-War Considered.
{"newspaper_name": "New-York daily tribune.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 8228, "word_count": 1451, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9538000226020813], "ccnet_perplexity": [1231.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
IN, North American Rerier for January con-
,,ins long able and candid account OF OREGON, its
,c,oal value and agricultural capacities with sum-
ming up Of the rights and claims of Great Britain
and the L. States respectively in that region, and
an exhibit of the rcasonableness Of resort to Wa
N se,,e them. We make room for the powerful
conclusion of this article, which is as follows


To prevent misapprehenson, we may as well
sneat here the opinion that has often been express
cd and as we think, proved, in our pages, that the
United States title, though imperfect, is the better
oftbe two In fact, Great Britain has admitted by
impcation as much as this; for. while this country
asserts its exclusive ownership of Oregonshe has ex-
orsssly in several official communications, limited
her claim to right OF JOINT occupancy OF the terri
tory with the United States, leaving the question OF
ABSOLUTE dominion in allegiance. Thus, in the state
men, made by Messrs Huskisson and Addington,
The British plcnpotentiaries, to Mr.. Gallan III 1927,
il is said -" Great Britain claims exclusive SOW
eregny over any portion OF the territory the Paci
fc between the 42d and 10Th parallels Of latitude; her
present claim not In respect to any part but to the
whole, is limited 10 a right of joint occupancy in
common with other States leaving the right of ex-
elusive dominion in abeyance, and her pretcnslons
lend to the mere maintenance of her own rights in re-
sence to the exclusive character Of the pretensions
Of the United States" Similar language was held
IN Mr.. Pakenhams letter to Mr.. Calhoun in Septem,
ber ls44 This right OF joint occupancy OF the whole
she is willing TO exchange for an absolute title 10 a
part. Her position, therefore, is a defensive one
with regard 20 the United States; she claims no
more than hat she now possesses. and has enjoy
ed ever since 1878, though by express agreement
this possession Is not TO be construed In derogatlon
-four claim The only definition or restriction OF
This right Of "joint occupancy" Except by the con-
yenton Of 1919, which may be terminated at year
notice. is 10 te sought for in the treaty on which the
ngbt itse,fis founded, namely, the convention with
Spain in 1870. according to which SO far as we can
see the United States may go on forming settle
neu,s and colonizing the whole of Oregon, except
athe places already occupied by the British. AT
neseDt this occupation cannot be construed 10 eX-
lend beyond few forts and stations, and the cult
vued fields ia their immediate vicinity. If the " hole
Of her claim were admitted then she would retain
these together with right Of navigating the rivers
fe1uenng the harbors and having free access to all
our settlements. On the other hand our position is
snoFensive one Supposing the convention OF 1918
terminated after due notice, the only question would
BE- no, whether we could retain The land now held
By our emigrants or whether we could continue
forming settlements in any part OF The territory that
we liked for 10 do both these things would be our
undisputed privilege; but whether we should go TO
war for the sake of driving the English out
Of The very slight hold which they now have upon
Oregon. The United States might even organize
territorial government and protect its colony by the
presence Of troops against the Indians, without
trenching upon The assumed rights of the English.
Whether j, would be prudent 10 leave these isola


ted British posts in the midst of the American colony
with its increased numbers is another question.


The positive side OF the British title may be very
quickly discussed; it rests entirely the Nootka
convention Of 1870. Up 10 that period, England
and Spain were the only powers that had any claims
to the possession of the North Pacific coast. The
conflict OF their respective claims put at rest by
the convention which Spain was buliied into max
ing in this year, BY the threat OF war which sue
was not prepared for While Eng gand by this IN
s,rument limited the rights of her opponent in the
territory, she also restricted her 1t was stip


aated that the respective subjects OF the contract
Ing parties should not be moesicd in navigating or
carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean or in
The South Seas, in landing the coasts OF those
seas IN places not already occupied for the purpose
of carrying on their commerce with the natives OF
he country, or Of making settlements there" 1t
was farther stipulated that, whatever settlements
night be made there by either nation, the subjects
Of the other power should have free access 10
hem. By this treaty, both Spain and England con-
snied to lorego all their previous claims and rights
-5unde6 on alleged prior discoveries, contiSuity of
etr,orv or any other basis--tor the sake OF this
Mutual guaranty OF joint occupation. All aa,ecc-
cent pretensions merged in this Treaty, and II
smere impertincnce or irrevelancy in either party
ago behind it for the purpose OF inquiring what
preyous acts or circumstances empowered Them TO
III, OF WuclllST w h'N oSSti
more liberal or more stringent on their side The
bargain may have been hard one-it certainly was,
one sense for Spain as we have said was bullied
INTO making it, but it was still bargain concluded
under hand and seal, and neither party had right
70 retact. England in future could assert right
eny OF joint occupancy, not of exclusive dominion
o ownership. Spain in future, or any country
claiming under SPAN, could asser, only an equa!
night AS no other power then laid any claim TO the
territory, or protested against this mode OF dividing
ihelr respective rights, thus limited and defined,
were good against the world


This is the whole positive side of Great Britain s
pe'ensions Oregon the negative side consists in
SVdlation OF the counter pretensons OF the United
saies BY the Florida treaty OF 1918, Spain made
oser all her right 10 the Pacific Coast North of lati


See 81 whatever it might be- TO the United States.
VI course, she could not cede more than she pos
essed she ceded II loaded with all the treaty stp
uaons and restrictions which she made respecting ii
ING u was In her possession She did not r0rraHt
ue goods sold; the purchaser took them for better
" worse Was Oregon in ISIS, still subject TO the
., .,oo.Aa Convention of 1890; England maintains
e. was that the treaty perpetual, that as no
..i:auon OF time is mentioned in IL, or even limited
was 10 last forever. The United States say that
was not that Spain and Z ngland went 10 war with
san other In l1so, and as annus all treaties,
a9 the ooIka convention then ceased OF course,


csasec during the actual conflict, R0grantc beiio !;
pSI did II not revive again when peace was mad e,
"cetaer II was mentioned In the treaty of peace or
s9! here is the real point; here issue is Joined,
sad The question can be decided only by an appeal
@sr'ernaiional law and historical precedents We


nk that these leave The question still indeterlnin.
Se agreements of certain character necessarily
apsing after war, while others are revived by a
Pace. though there be no express mention of them.
Me Treaty OF Ghent in 1914. il was not thought


sessary TO revive and enact over again all the pro-
,soas Of the Treaty. Of 1888. Many of these. OF
1erown iorce returned TO the status ante 6elium
~a'ae other hand, the specific enumeration, in ma
seaiies of peace. of certain articles and siipula
s;a'eootained in former treaties W hich TO be re-
ea by the action of the later Convention. is q
soay Implication that the articles not enumerated
tss o oe considered as dropped, or destroyed by
SST Certain fishing rights were secured 10 US
s.as .0s treaty Of l7s3 which the English held 10 be
nsss.d .ssied by the war of 1872 while the American
c"ssers csyaaiers maintained that they revived on the
tsa tos'on Of the Treaty OF Ghent In this case the
,s.. parties are found in reversed position with
rss., 70 each other, each asserting doctrines di-
lhs Z opposed TO what they now hold respecting
n,;,, .9o.sa Convention. Here, thcn on a capital
ts.,;,n u The rte of either party, we find doubt
the ~. which canno, be removed. This is fatal to


gsssertlon OF perfect title on either side